why Mormans are not Christian

and i have not been looking at anti Mormon websites that would be stupid

 

Well here is the thing. The answer to your question about President Hinkley is a google search away yet you refuse to look it up. The claims of racism and the twisted documents are also a google search away, and all of them come from anti-Mormon web sites.

Indeed, the church had it wrong, realized it was wrong, apologized, repented, changed its ways, and has moved on.

Why haven't you? Do you think the church is still secretly precluding african americans from joining the church? Racist on the sly?

 

i make my own claims on racism hear im not twisting what the book of Mormon said

and i say racism it found in the churches history and in scripture not that a member has to be racist or that the church acts in a racist way today

is this what you were looking at?

"I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ," said President Hinckley. "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?"


that’s a good statement but the church lived in that arrogance for over 100 years chastising members who contuse to act in that fashion after the church changed direction is not the same as saying the church was wrong


Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.


no hint of the church being in error there either just says god is now cool with priesthood holders being any man considered morally worthy

 

You keep going back to the same points over and over again, despite SEVERAL posters answering your concerns.

The text is explained - repeatedly in context. The President of the Church himself, on 60 minutes no less, came out and acknowledged that the church had been wrong and thus changed it policy on the priesthood.

Still you continually interpret it in a way that church most certainly does not, telling us that your interpretation is the correct one - and not the one that Mormons actually teach these days? And you continue to take zero steps to actually find what is easily there.

In fact, at this point, even if I put the proof you desire on this thread, you'd just find a reason to deny it.

Why do you need Mormons to be racist?

At this point, the continual assertions in defiance of fact are making you, not the church, look bigoted.

 

Letter from the LDS First Presidency, 1947

"Dear Brother Nelson:

". . . The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assinged to superior positions before the world was formed.

"We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore. From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

"Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

"Faithfully yours,

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay"

 

the text says god has finally changed his policy and that this was expected if you’re reading something else please show me but this was not an apology and not an admittance of wrong doing

you keep lying about me saying im calling Mormons racist stop that

 

.....ya......

 

It seems to me that if the LDS church is Gods Church, then a doctrine in rule for a hundred and fifty years is not a mistake. So it stands to reason that its application and eventual removal was a matter of Divine wisdom and purpose, rather than the presence and repentance of the sin of racism.

 

or it suggests its not the church of a god but an evolving institution of man what exactly is the wisdom of not letting someone join the priesthood because there black or have black ancestors in the last couple of generations

 

You are calling Mormons racist. You are repeatedly saying that Mormons continue to to read those verses in a certain way ...

Clearly that policy has changed, and those verses are not consodered period specific, not broadly specific, and have been clarified by the leader of the church.

Now they have to repent the way you want them to?

Well, that just smacks of excessive pride to me. A policy that never hurt you, and you demand that the church apologize in a specific manner to YOU before you will acknowledge that the offending policy has been halted and reversed?

Well, good luck with that.

 

There has only ever been one perfect Prophet - Jesus.

All the rest are human beings who make mistakes. And what makes the concept of Prophecy so interesting, from the OT right up to now, is that Prophets allow change.

This stands in stark contrast to say ... Islamic struggles with Sharia, which in period specific context was often light years ahead of the petty 'justice' of the era. Well, times have changed and there are still Muslims attempting to turn the clock back by over a thousand years.

With a modern Prophet, when something is out of whack ... guess what the Prophet can do?

On one hand, we see the church's critics demanding perfection or denying. There has only ever been one perfect human - Jesus. Jesus is the center of the church (of all Christian Chirches) he personally leads none of them.

On the other hand, the entire point of having a Prophet is to set changing policy and conditions that allow the church, as we humans do, to continuously better itself and grow closer to God. That includes the realization that post policies were mistakes. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The entire concept of accountability, repetence, apology, forgiveness, and atonement applies from the highest to the lowest. To organizations and individuals. THAT is God's way.

 

I know what you mean. But if you expand the concept of exclusion, and backup to anytime pre-LDS, you'll find that not only the Priesthood, but the entire LDS Gospel, ordinaces, Temples and all church blessings were forbidden or withheld from everyone for nearly 2,000 years according to LDS doctrine. Why? I guess that's for God to know.

 

i am not calling Mormons racist I do say the verses were originally meant a certain way not that people don’t reinterpret them just that the reinterpretation exists to help preserve the religion rather than being closer to what was 1st intended

 

where has the church admitted its policies have ever been a mistake?

 

Yes the idea that god abandoned Christianity for 2000 years while sincere bleeders oppressed and killed one another over religion many a time looks bad but he was not actively denying it from people

 

You said that Jesus is the center of all Christian Churchs, and leads none of them. This is in opposition to LDS foundation and doctrine, undermining its whole legitimacy, especially the authority to do anything in Gods name.

 

No its not. The doctrine of the church is that a modern Prophet, sitting over a counsel of seers, leads the church through divine inspiration. No one in the church claims that Jesus LITERALLY sits and gives literal direction on policy, though when asked and granted, guidance is surely given.

Indeed, the authority of the church, the preisthood, can be given and taken away extremely quickly if it is abused, a concept that I find ... honest in the church.

Indeed, I was shocked to learn that the BoM is not complete, that Joseph Smith was not given access to some of the plates, the idea being that, when humanity is ready, these oplates will reveal further guidance.

No Prophet save Jesus has ever been perfect, and no Prophet of the LDS Church or any other Prophet in history has ever claimed perfection. The church is going to make mistakes, what marks that church, IMO, as capable is that it has a mechanism of redressing mistakes quickly.

To never be able to acknowledge mistakes or fault? That doesn't smack me as anything that Jesus would ever create.

 

I understand what you're saying. But by Joseph Smiths own account, God appeared to him and told him that none of the Churchs were true. And that he(God) would establish his Church and authority thru Joseph Smith.

 

And I have no problem with that. Joseph Smith was still a man though. He still made mistakes, and the error in thinking would that, however divinely inspired, that everything flowed through him in absolute perfection - as it did to NO OTHER Prophet. Would you be willing to say that at no point was Jospeh Smith's interpretive ability in play? That his desires, for the entirety of his life were always completely subordinate to God's?

I understand the doctrinal claims, and, quite frankly after the visiting the church, was duelly impressed by it. However, what struck me most profoundly about the entire concpet is the ability, through Prophecy, to acknowledge fault and move on.

That stands in sharp contrast to the Catholic Church, another church I admire, who allows traditions to define positions far more often than tangible common sense. There is alos the fact that the Catholic Church is much bigger and represents the consensus of a much more diverse gathering of people. Nevertheless, in issues like clerical celebacy, when almost all other churches allow it and flourish, seem an odd tradition to hang divinity upon - particularly when family and spouses are one of the great blessings of the Bible.

I know for a fact that changing that one policy would fill the Seminaries of Catholicism with priests. That would include my best freind, who choose family over the duties of a priest. Its sad for both the church and my friend.

And yet, a Prophet, who goes to God and asks direction on the issue should be able to change that policy. If indeed that was the will of God, rather than the church at any rate.

 

What you say makes a large measure of sense. However the gravity of restricting the blessings of the Priesthood from worthy members just because of their lineage is not a small matter. It is self evident that it would be an unfair practice barring some divine purpose beyond common understanding. As such, it would be far more comprehensible as something needing immediate adjustment, and far easier to embrace and accept(lifting the ban) than say concepts such as baptism for the dead, or an Angel appearing to Joseph Smith, or metal plates of curious workmanship which no-one can see because the Angel took them back, and so forth.

The Church is named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not the Church of Joseph Smith of Latter Day Saints. That's because Jesus Christ is the head of his Church. Now I could understand and agree with you that Joseph Smith, being human, could have erred in judgment. But of something of such importance as the Priesthood, I cannot believe that God would allow it to continue past one broken heart, much less every Prophet, and every First Presidency, and every Quorum of the Twelve Disciples over the course of one hundred and fifty years, as a mere Oops! No, it is Gods doing, just as it is his to undo.

 

Well, I think the matter may very well be the same as the choice that faced early Christians with regard to slavery. Remember, its the early 1800's BEFORE the civil war, and slavery and its political turmoil threaten to ripe the country apart. Mormons weren't exactly taken at face value and considered the restored prophecy right off the bat. Rather they were persecuted, killed, and chased, quite literally, across the country. And that is just over doctrinal differences.

What happens if the church, in this fragile state, injects itself in the slavery discussion. Think bleeding Kansas, and its just one more reason to kick Mormons while they are down. And, given the dire straights of the Mormons at their creation, that extra kick might very well have been enough to insight enough violence to wipe Joseph Smith and his followers right off the planet again. How exactly would that have restored something as important as teh priesthood?

They do say afterall that descretion is the better part of valor.

And yet, when the threat was lifted and one of the Prophets of the church asked .... well, the interpretation becomes one more in keeping with what we know to be the standards of God - the creator of all men. They say that God will not allow the church to be lead astray, and leading it over a cliff based on moral battles it cannot win in its infancy seems ... a pretty good way to ensure the church fails. As it grows stornger, as more accept its teachings, the church's ability to weigh in on these subjects increases. One step at a time.

No different than Paul's church having to battle Roman persecution, to prioritize, and now, those who persecuted the Catholic Church are swept away - the Church remains. I see Mormonism as no different.

Even more profound, this example provides a perfect example of the need for atonement. One can be wrong, even stubbornly so, but when we come to our sense, we apologize and seek forgiveness. Even the mightest of us have need of atonement. Even the greatest of Prophets, save the Son.

 

if only they had a supreme being who would ensure there survival( of the church at least ) if they just believed in it and acted how it directed

why then the church could have been an example to the world of how god want people to always act

Rather than having to act worse just to survive

 

God is not going to do it for us stig. You go ahead and try to build an organization from the ground up starting with ... yourself and a good idea - and are immediately persecuted for it.

Good Luck.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/14?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/dan/6?lang=eng&query=lions+den

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/5.20-22?lang=eng#19

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/28.17?lang=eng#16

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/13?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/16?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/57?lang=eng&query=one+slain

Seems like god can and has interfered to save the lives of who he wants to for as long as he wants to

so no i don’t see a reason for the church to act less like god would ideally want them to in order to survive

 

You are argueing apples and oranges. At this point, you said you were no longer a believer, I think you are just looking for excuses to not believe. Simple as that.

No man save Jesus is ever going to be perfect. If the standard for the Mormon church is absolute perfection as you see it? Well then brother, you are correct, that church is most definitely not for you .... nor is any other one.

Humans are not, and are never going to be perfect. Not the woman you marry, not the child you raise, not the dog you feed. Yet we must continue to make our way.

Atonement BTW, is an important part of ANY church of Christ. That is one thing they all agree on.