LDS

[Janadele]

That's not Mormon doctrine.

Yes it is.

Every mortal ever born on this earth, and all those yet to come, are the Spiritual children of their Heavenly Mother and our Heavenly Father.

 

[RandFan]

Lamanites and Native Americans were never excluded from holding the Priesthood. Read and comprehend before responding.

Did god curse the Lamanites with dark skin?

"And [the Lord] had caused the cursing to come upon [the Lamanites], yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto [the Nephites] the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

 

[RandFan]

Yes it is.

You are using yourself as a source? Sorry but that simply will not due. Give me an official acknowledgment. And no special pleading. Remember that according to you the teachings of Brigham Young are not doctrine just because Young, a prophet of god, declared that they were scripture.

According to historian Linda Wilcox, Heavenly Mother "is a shadowy and elusive belief floating around the edges of Mormon consciousness".[25] Though the belief is held by Mormons, the doctrine is not actively advertised by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though Heavenly Mother is sometimes mentioned in talks or sermons in Sacrament meetings and in Sunday School classes. The topic is most often consistent with the theology discussed above.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Where in your various readings does it describe those who are excluded as being of African descent? Please cite chapter and verse.

Yes, please answer this, Janadele.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Lamanites and Native Americans were never excluded from holding the Priesthood. Read and comprehend before responding.

So,

1. Native Americans are cursed by God with a "skin of blackness".

2. People of African descent were discriminated against for other reasons.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[tsig]

So,

1. Native Americans are cursed by God with a "skin of blackness".

2. People of African descent were discriminated against for other reasons.

Does that about sum it up?

Blacks/Negros couldn't take the responsibility of the Priesthood til they had been educated for 130 years by their betters then they were worthy (sort of).

This was all worked out in the Eternal Plan.

 

[Pup]

Please don't distract the thread.
We're discussing the LDS, not the Santa Oficio.

It was an answer to your direct question. People are upset that Janadele doesn't answer direct questions, and now you're complaining because I did.

Are you justifying Smith's deliberate scam by saying all religions are scams?

Are you saying that Smith's is unique? I honestly don't see a difference. I'm saying they're all the same, but in the US at least, Protestants/Catholics/Jews want to convince people (including atheists) that there's a difference. Angry anti-Mormons here tend to be Protestants, not atheists. Mindless religious-based prejudices like that bother me, because it's just the pot calling the kettle black, but they don't see it because they're blinded by their own religion.

Actually, Pup, I think you're over-selling Protestantism, at least in terms of the world.
Maybe in terms of the US, yes.
I wouldn't know.
And your point is?

I'm US based, so can't speak from a global perspective, and don't intend to. From what I've read, it's apparently different elsewhere in the world.

So my point may not make sense or be relevant to people in other countries. If so, feel free to ignore.

My point is the same one I made in this post (where "Christian" is referring to mainstream Protestants and Catholics):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8884826&postcount=678

 

[Pup]

Every mortal ever born on this earth, and all those yet to come, are the Spiritual children of their Heavenly Mother and our Heavenly Father.

That's not Mormon doctrine.

Really? I thought it was, and even noticed the careful wording: "Spiritual children of their Heavenly Mother and our Heavenly Father," which allows for the fact that heavenly father has more than one wife, so everyone has the same heavenly father but may have a different heavenly mother.

Went looking for official doctrine, and it seems to be currently taught, but I'm having trouble finding it in official scriptures like the D&C, Bible, BoM. The usual reference to D&C 93:21 goes to: "And now, verily I [Jesus] say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;" but that seems only slight evidence of heavenly parents.

But it seems to be widely taught today. The following is from a current Gospel Principles book, which would be for Investigator's Sunday school class (I know you know this, but it's the class for new members or non-members just interested in learning about the church):

"Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26). Because we are the spiritual children of our heavenly parents, we have inherited the potential to develop their divine qualities." (page 11, image #18, of this big PDF file).

From the Bible Dictionary at lds.org:

Every person is literally a son or a daughter of God, having been born as a spirit to Heavenly Parents previous to being born to mortal parents on the earth

There's the current hymn, O My Father, which talks about a heavenly mother.

So on the one hand, it seems to be currently and widely accepted and taught as doctrine by the church with no controversy, but on the other hand, I can't actually run it down to any of the three core texts.

 

[RandFan]

Really? I thought it was, and even noticed the careful wording: "Spiritual children of their Heavenly Mother and our Heavenly Father," which allows for the fact that heavenly father has more than one wife, so everyone has the same heavenly father but may have a different heavenly mother.

Went looking for official doctrine, and it seems to be currently taught, but I'm having trouble finding it in official scriptures like the D&C, Bible, BoM. The usual reference to D&C 93:21 goes to: "And now, verily I [Jesus] say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;" but that seems only slight evidence of heavenly parents.

But it seems to be widely taught today. The following is from a current Gospel Principles book, which would be for Investigator's Sunday school class (I know you know this, but it's the class for new members or non-members just interested in learning about the church):

From the Bible Dictionary at lds.org:

There's the current hymn, O My Father, which talks about a heavenly mother.

So on the one hand, it seems to be currently and widely accepted and taught as doctrine by the church with no controversy, but on the other hand, I can't actually run it down to any of the three core texts.

When I was growing up I was taught the Blood Doctrine as outlined by Young. He was a prophet of god and said his words were scripture. But Janadele says that it's not. So, how do we know what is doctrine and what isn't?

 

[Pup]

When I was growing up I was taught the Blood Doctrine as outlined by Young. He was a prophet of god and said his words were scripture. But Janadele says that it's not. So, how do we know what is doctrine and what isn't?

Well, that's the problem with religion. It tries to sell itself as providing simple uncontrovertible answers about Truth, unlike those untrustworthy scientists who are always revising their theories. But of course that's impossible, so the best it can do is try to provide the illusion.

This seems to be a case where there's no more explicit canonical support than for the Danites or Adam-God, and the most that one can say is it's currently taught in non-canonical sources without controversy in the church, so a believer can currently feel safe in the illusion that it's an enternal truth.

 

[SezMe]

Yes they're all frauds but the title of this thread is "LDS" so your continued mention of others strikes me as an attempt at distraction.

Disagree. If there's any "E" in this thread, a large chunk has been provided by Pup. His "compare and contrast" posts add valuable illumination to a topic the OPer has done her best to make entirely opaque.

 

[Jon.]

Disagree. If there's any "E" in this thread, a large chunk has been provided by Pup. His "compare and contrast" posts add valuable illumination to a topic the OPer has done her best to make entirely opaque.

Agreed. Pup, Cat Tale and RandFan, along with a few other posters, have done a lot to educate me about Mormonism, its history, and its beliefs and tenets. Would that I could say the same about Janadele.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Agreed. Pup, Cat Tale and RandFan, along with a few other posters, have done a lot to educate me about Mormonism, its history, and its beliefs and tenets. Would that I could say the same about Janadele.

I think she's enlightened a lot of people. Just not in the way she intended.

 

[Shiner]

I've got a (semi) serious question, Janadele.......... or anyone who can think for themselves.

Why only one Heavenly Mother?

The all knowing, all powerful God grants his faithful (men) the privelege (?) of multiple wives, yet allows Himself only one? He's a good God, isn't he?

This leads me to another point; Mormon women are far more likely to attain the Celestial level than men. I'll bet that gets a few knickers in a twist.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Yes it is.

No, it's not...See how that works?

 

[Janadele]

Shiner: Read my previous post more carefully.

 

[Janadele]

So God's cursing the Lamanites black skin (according to the BoM) is a completely separate issue from African-Americans being denied the priesthood?

Of course it is completely separate.

Scriptural language has always historically referenced unrighteousness or wickedness with darkness, and purity and righteousness with light.

It should also be remembered that meanings and interpretations of words have changed over time.

As previously posted, it was not "African-Americans" from whom the Lord withheld the responsibility of His Priesthood. This is not a debateable point.

For a short time, and for His own reasons, the Lord withheld the responsibility of His Priesthood from worthy males of Negro descent. They were always allowed the privilege of baptism, and of membership, through which they received the blessings of the Priesthood, without the responsibility... as is the situation also for women.

Skin colour does not define the Negro race.

 

[Shalamar]

Of course it is completely separate.

Scriptural language has always historically referenced unrighteousness or wickedness with darkness, and purity and righteousness with light.

It should also be remembered that meanings and interpretations of words have changed over time.

As previously posted, it was not "African-Americans" from whom the Lord withheld the responsibility of His Priesthood. This is not a debateable point.

For a short time, and for His own reasons, the Lord withheld the responsibility of His Priesthood from worthy males of Negro descent. They were always allowed the privilege of baptism, and of membership, through which they received the blessings of the Priesthood, without the responsibility... as is the situation also for women.

So nice to see the hatred, bigotry, and evil in a religion.

Thank you Janadele, for showing me such about the LDS church.

 

[Craig4]

Shiner: Read my previous post more carefully.

I believe he did read them very carefully.

 

[RandFan]

It should also be remembered that meanings and interpretations of words have changed over time.

When Brigham Young said "black skin" and "flat nose", what did that mean?

As previously posted, it was not "African-Americans" from whom the Lord withheld the responsibility of His Priesthood. This is not a debateable point.

For a short time, and for His own reasons, the Lord withheld the responsibility of His Priesthood from worthy males of Negro descent.

What is a negro? Why are African-Americans not negro?