• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Revelation and the LDS Church – Question time

Dream Angel

Well-Known Member
Why do religionists think that:

1. Others are interested in their practices.

Because this is a religious forums and discussing each others religions/or lack of/beliefs/spirituality etc is kind of the point...:confused:

I am sure there are those who are not interested - they dont have to take part in the thread. There are many who are interested and will participate and ask questions. Many like to broaden their mind and learn new things. There are loads of threads on other religions here which I have no interest in, but I am not throwing out questions which have blatantly obvious answers.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
2. is it true that the book of mormon claims that god especially likes or preferrs fair skinned people. in other words, is god a racist? if god is the creator of all humans, then that means that he deliberately chose to create some people (dark skinned) inferior to others(light skinned)
No, it is not true. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Lord "doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white,bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."
Well, that's not quite complete, is it Katzpur?
"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.
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. 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. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."​
Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.
(Remember, according to Mormon theology, this is a revelation from God, and somewhat equivalent, or even better than, written sources.)

2 Nephi 5: 21- 'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, 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 my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

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, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

"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, vol. 10, p. 110).

"Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin" (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 476-477, 1958 edition; p. 527 in the second edition in 1966).

Just to clarify, this is not to say that modern Mormons are any more or less racist than other white Americans, only that their doctrine contains a history of racism.



 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Twelve dishonest men would have to serve in the capacity of Apostles. Any revelation given to the Prophet is also subsequently given to the members of the Quorum of the Twelve, who fast and pray for confirmation that what the Prophet has told them truly is God's word.

Dishonest? What if they just mistakenly believed the Prophet? In fact, what if the Prophet, being human and all, just mistakenly believed that he had a revelation? And being the Prophet, wouldn't that tend to make a big impact on how it was received?

Are you trying to say that no Prophet has ever been mistaken about any claimed revelation? That they're all correct, including the ones that contradict each other?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
tomasortega, you'll have to start your own thread on the topic. otherwise, we'll have to report you for not sticking with the OP of this thread.

For the record:

Black men held the Priesthood when Joseph Smith was prophet.

Mormons were abolitionists. That's a HUGE reason they had problems in Missouri.

Well, it's more complicated than that, isn't it?

"After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind-wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this nature, as the fact is incontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
"And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant." —Genesis 9:25-27
"Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictate by his counsel." - (Joseph Smith Jr., Messenger and Advocate Vol. II, No. 7, April 1836 , p. 290; History of the Church, Vol. 2, Ch. 30, pp. 436-40.)

In 1838, Joseph Smith answered the following question while en route from Kirtland to Missouri, as follows: "Are the Mormons abolitionists? No ... we do not believe in setting the Negroes free."(Smith 1977, p.120)

[all from wiki]
 
Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.
(Remember, according to Mormon theology, this is a revelation from God, and somewhat equivalent, or even better than, written sources.)

Actually, you've got your facts mixed up. As I was reading over the forums, my cousin (who is LDS) got interested in what is going on and she directed me to this.

What is official LDS Doctrine?

Not every utterance by every general authority constitutes “official” doctrine.“There are many subjects,” we read in the First Presidency-authorized Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “about which the scriptures are not clear and about which the Church has made no official pronouncements. In such matters, one can find differences of opinion among Church members and leaders. Until the truth of these matters is made known by revelation, there is room for different levels of understanding and interpretation of unsettled issues.”

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.”This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”

To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”
To be honest, I'd rather here what is and isn't doctrine and what the Mormon Church actually teaches from a Mormon (which you aren't). So I'd let them tell everyone what their teachings are instead of a non-mormon who has an obvious bias trying to tell everyone their doctrine. It's very obvious you are trying to prove a point, they are just defending their beliefs/doctrine while you are trying to push something you think they believe in to prove a point. It's actually rather pathetic to see someone do that.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
It may be true that not everything said by every leader in every conference is revelation and doctrine. These pronouncements of Brigham Young, however, were given as revelations and were considered doctrine, which is why it took another revelation (in 1978) to reverse them.

[FONT=&quot]With regard to the priesthood ban, the links to social circumstances can be seen most clearly in Brigham Young’s 1848 revelation.[/FONT] (from here.)

You are welcome to listen to whomever you think is knowledgeable and credible on the subject.
 
It may be true that not everything said by every leader in every conference is revelation and doctrine. These pronouncements of Brigham Young, however, were given as revelations and were considered doctrine, which is why it took another revelation (in 1978) to reverse them.

According to my cousin, you are wrong. If you actually read the link, then you would understand they were not actually doctrine. Please leave Mormon doctrine to the Mormons. You're obvious bias is clouding your posts here. you aren't a Mormon, will never be a Mormon and haven't studied Mormon theology, do you really think that you know anything about it?

You are welcome to listen to whomever you think is knowledgeable and credible on the subject.

Hmmm..

Non-Mormon, who doesn't like Mormon doctrine or the Mormon church and who is trying to fit Mormon doctrine to prove her point.:no:

Or lifetime members, teachers in the Mormon Church, actual Mormon people. :yes:

I think I'll take the latter.
 

OmarKhayyam

Well-Known Member
I have a question.

". . . who fast and pray for confirmation that what the Prophet has told them truly is God's word."

Why is it assumed one thinks better on an empty stomach? Or is it not really "thinking" as we normally understand it?

Or why doesn't god simply put it on tape and so remove all doubt?
 

idea

Question Everything
I have a question.

". . . who fast and pray for confirmation that what the Prophet has told them truly is God's word."

Why is it assumed one thinks better on an empty stomach? Or is it not really "thinking" as we normally understand it?

Or why doesn't god simply put it on tape and so remove all doubt?

to me fasting is showing self-control, it is an action signifying that we are willing to actually go and do something rather than just sit around and listen. It is not just about thinking, it is about acting. Those who are willing to act are given information to act on. Those who are unwilling to act, who have no self-control, will not be given information that would condemn them (we are accountable for what we know.)
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Dishonest? What if they just mistakenly believed the Prophet? In fact, what if the Prophet, being human and all, just mistakenly believed that he had a revelation? And being the Prophet, wouldn't that tend to make a big impact on how it was received?

Are you trying to say that no Prophet has ever been mistaken about any claimed revelation? That they're all correct, including the ones that contradict each other?
What if an asteroid smashes into the Earth tomorrow?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
According to my cousin, you are wrong. If you actually read the link, then you would understand they were not actually doctrine. Please leave Mormon doctrine to the Mormons. You're obvious bias is clouding your posts here. you aren't a Mormon, will never be a Mormon and haven't studied Mormon theology, do you really think that you know anything about it?



Hmmm..

Non-Mormon, who doesn't like Mormon doctrine or the Mormon church and who is trying to fit Mormon doctrine to prove her point.:no:

Or lifetime members, teachers in the Mormon Church, actual Mormon people. :yes:

I think I'll take the latter.

Odd. On the one hand, you have people passionately devoted to their Church, who love it devotedly and have been schooled to defend it since they were small children, whose entire thought process is steeped in its beliefs, and you don't think they're biased. On the other hand you have someone who has not particular axe to grind but the truth. And you assume the latter to be biased.

I believe that your cousin is mistaken, and this was doctrine. It's part of Mormon history to deny that former doctrine ever was doctrine. Since your cousin is Mormon, she has probably been told this. However, in fact, two classes of people (white and other) has been part of Mormon revealed theology for some time, up until recently.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
What if an asteroid smashes into the Earth tomorrow?

You're saying that the probability of a Prophet being mistaken is as unlikely as an asteroid smashing earth? But doesn't it in fact happen frequently? Or do you agree that interracial marriage should be punished by death?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Well, that's not quite complete, is it Katzpur?
Of course it's not quite "complete," but it does accurately cut to the chase. God has always accepted anyone who wants His acceptance, regardless of color. That is the bottom line message of the Book of Mormon. It would have taken me an hour to give tomas a "complete" answer, and had he been the slightest bit civil in posing his question, I would have done so.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Dishonest? What if they just mistakenly believed the Prophet?
Well, since we believe that they pray for guidance and that God does answer their prayers, it would not have been a matter of their "just mistakenly believing the Prophet." It doesn't work that way.

In fact, what if the Prophet, being human and all, just mistakenly believed that he had a revelation?
It doesn't work that way. And even if it did, the Twelve would also have to have receive the same mixed message. I can understand how you would think that could easily happen. Believing that God hears and answers prayers, I don't.

Are you trying to say that no Prophet has ever been mistaken about any claimed revelation? That they're all correct, including the ones that contradict each other?
Why don't you give me the example you're thinking of? You clearly have something in mind. Rather than just beating around the bush, why don't you just save yourself some time?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I have a question.

". . . who fast and pray for confirmation that what the Prophet has told them truly is God's word."

Why is it assumed one thinks better on an empty stomach? Or is it not really "thinking" as we normally understand it?

Or why doesn't god simply put it on tape and so remove all doubt?
And why must you always have to be sarcastic in every question you ask?
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
You're saying that the probability of a Prophet being mistaken is as unlikely as an asteroid smashing earth? But doesn't it in fact happen frequently? Or do you agree that interracial marriage should be punished by death?
I am saying we can play the "What if" game too.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Odd. On the one hand, you have people passionately devoted to their Church, who love it devotedly and have been schooled to defend it since they were small children, whose entire thought process is steeped in its beliefs, and you don't think they're biased. On the other hand you have someone who has not particular axe to grind but the truth. And you assume the latter to be biased.
Didn't I just get through telling you that I am, in fact, biased, Auto? How could I not be biased in favor of something I believe? You're biased in favor of what you believe. And when it comes to religion and politics, I have yet to find someone who isn't biased. For someone who has no ax to grind, you spend an awful lot of time trying to undercut the faith of a group of people who constitute perhaps 1/15 of 1% of the world's population. Why make us your cause?

I believe that your cousin is mistaken, and this was doctrine.
You're wrong. It was not doctrine. It was policy. There is a difference.

It's part of Mormon history to deny that former doctrine ever was doctrine.
That's absolute nonsense. If it had ever been doctrine, you could find it in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's not there.

Since your cousin is Mormon, she has probably been told this.
And since you are not Mormon, your opinion is more reliable?

However, in fact, two classes of people (white and other) has been part of Mormon revealed theology for some time, up until recently.
That's false. Period. Your knowledge of our theology is laughable.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Of course it's not quite "complete," but it does accurately cut to the chase. God has always accepted anyone who wants His acceptance, regardless of color. That is the bottom line message of the Book of Mormon. It would have taken me an hour to give tomas a "complete" answer, and had he been the slightest bit civil in posing his question, I would have done so.

Well, I would say it was so incomplete as to be inaccurate, and I think the questioner would agree. You left out everything unflattering to Mormon history, which is one of the hallmarks of Mormon history.
 
Top