posted
The policy that disallowed ordaining black priests originated when the early Church was trying to survive in a slave state in the early 1800's. It was only instituted AFTER one black priest had already been ordained, and no specific revelation on the subject was ever cited.
Years later, after the move to Utah, as the officially non-racist Mormons attempted to justify to themselves why such a policy should exist in a church of adamant abolitionists, a wide range of explanations were made up, most tracing back to the lineage of Cain, or of Ham, or of some other ancient who fell into disfavor.
None of these explanations ever became official doctrine of the Church, but they made some members (and even some leaders) feel better about themselves in the meantime, without having to question the validity of Church policies — a practice that often makes the faithful feel uncomfortable or disloyal. Unfortunately, these ideas justified and propagated real racism among some members of the Church ... to about the degree that racism was widespread throughout ALL of America at the time.
Later, after the Civil Rights movement in America had successfully changed the hearts of a lot of people, the Prophet and Apostles (the leaders of the Church) met to pray about the old policy. They received an overwhelming impression that the time was right to rescind the policy and extend the priesthood to members of all races.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason why the Church takes flak for this policy, though, is the fact that unlike many other Christian churches, we have existed as a single, coherent body since the early nineteenth century. Look at most modern Evangelical churches, and you'll see that few of them have maintained the same leadership and membership for more than a few decades, if that. So it's easy for an Evangelical church to say, "Well, WE never had any racist policies!" when in fact, the oldest members of that same church once attended other churches that DID have racist policies. But because there is no single, coherent Christian Church, old racist churches were allowed to die off, and modern Christians can pretend they never existed.
Mormons, however, are stuck with every silly thing ever said by a leader of the Church at any time in history. We can't just fade away and be replaced every few decades as a new theological trend sweeps the country Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once went into the Christian book store in Bozeman hoping I could find something of general interest to Christians. They had an entire section of anti-mormon literature. I found it offensive then, and now, that people proporting to be Christians would dedicate so much space and effort to deliberate distortion of others beliefs. Most of what they said about Mormons was comparable to calling the Catholic Eucharist cannabalisim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a somewhat valid argument that can be made that Mormons are not Christians. That is, if you have a definition of Christian narrow enough, you can be justified in excluding Mormons under that definition. Generally those who do so base it on Mormon's rejection of the Nicean and Apostles' Creeds. If adherence to those creeds is requisite to be called Christian, and it is in some people's minds, then Latter-day Saints don't fit into that definition. I personally consider myself both Mormon and Christian, but I don't let it bother me that some people may think I am not.
edit: By the way, Geoff, that was the best and most succinct explanation of our Church's history with blacks that I have ever seen.
[ February 17, 2005, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I agree with Brian. I have never read a more to the point statment about the historical relationship between blacks and the church. Thanks.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
While we're on Mormonism, though, I have a question. Somewhere I read that Mormon youths refrain from dating 'til their sixteen. I definitely see nothing wrong with waiting 'til your more mature, but I was curious as to why they picked that age. Is that in scripture? Or is that just a convenient age to choose because of everything else it gets you (driver's license, job, etc.)? Or is there another reason? Or was the article I read that from full of crap?
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Young people are encouraged to wait until 16 to date, but it's not in the scriptures. It falls under the category of "the counsel of the modern prophet" which we adhere to just as closely, but which doesn't have the permanence of scripture. It is designed to apply to a specific situation in a specific time, rather than reflecting some deep, underlying, universal truth Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. And now the other question: why sixteen? I mean, I know 14 year olds that are definitely mature enough to date, and 24 year olds that are definitely not.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We haven't been given a specific reason as to why 16 and not 15 or 17.
We are encouraged to not attend mixer functions like dances until 14, not to date until 16, and to not date exclusively until 18.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hey Antonia, that name doesn't happen to be a reference to A Christmas Story, would it?
No, it's a reference to an old RPG character of mine. Whether or not I originally named that character from Ralphie in A Christmas Story, though, I can't remember.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whoa, wait a minute. You have to be Protestant to be Christian? So, um, you're one of those who believe that Catholics are not Christian?
You misunderstand me. There's "christianity" as being a believer and follower of Christ. Christ is the end-all and center of faith within The Church of Jesus-Christ. So by that definition, we are Christian.
It's not like it's "The Church of Bob." :-)
But then there's the definition of christianity as a common heritage. Catholics claim to be the original church left in the care of the Apostles. Over time groups broke away and began their own faiths. These Protestants and other groups are but branches of a central tree, a common background.
The Church of Jesus-Christ, however, is restorationist. It claims no connection with any existing faith, but instead teaches it is the restored gospel through direct revelation by authorized prophets. It's a whole different tree.
I hope that makes sense.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we don't believe we are a graft or a new tree. What we believe is like, the tree was planted, then cut down and burned. We are the tree that was restored to the earth by the hand of God, whole and unblemished, that had been cut down and burned before.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of like a Pheonix tree! P.S. I'm not making fun thats just what popped into my head when I read the tree thing. Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of, except we believe that the tree won't go away again until Jesus returns (although it might get hacked at quite a bit...)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, but you don't need to say "hi" every time you see me, dear. I am on far too much for that. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The single most pervasive "myth" (using that as the nicest way of putting it) would be that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not Christian. As someone above said, you could technically say that if you used the most narrowly and biased understanding of that term. Most LDS fully admit that we are not traditional or orthodox Christians. We are not Protestant or Catholic, but consider ourselves Restorationists. Strangly, those who are loudest at claiming Mormons aren't Christians say the same thing about Catholicism.
If you MUST claim a difference from the Catholic and Protestant traditions, it is far less offensive to just say "Mormon Christians" like you would Evangilical Christians, Progressive Christians, Cultural Christians, etc. But, to say Mormons aren't Christians is usually an agressive attack to deny an identity with the very Deity Mormons Worship. It would be as if you were to say (and some have is why I use the example) Muslims don't Worship God; Just a polytheistic Moon Goddess. Again, technically speaking that might be true, so far as the origination of the word Allah is concerned. But, that is not their intentions and arrogantly dismisses the viewpoint of the worshippers. The past meaning of the word is irrelavant to Muslims as much as the different interpretations of the nature of Jesus Christ is to Mormons.
The second one is, regardless of how many years (will it take 1000 years before people get the hint?) has passed, people still claim the vast majority of Mormons are polygamists. True, the doctrine remains in force as a revelation. Still, it has been equally pronoucned in no uncertain Prophetic statements that the practice is to be abandoned. people who marry more than one husband or wife will be EXCOMMUNICATED from the "mainstream" Church. Other than shared history, at best, the Mormons who are still practicing polygamy are seperate denominations as different as Baptists are to Methodists (or perhaps even Protestants from Catholics). However, because making potshot points is more important than distinctions, secular and religious groups continue to force an immediate connection.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would someone please post some of the misconceptions about mormonism that are mistakes made my some christians. I am intrested to here the discrepencies between what the LCS say and what some of my baptist roots say.
I wouldn't exactly say lies as much as half-truths. They teach things in a way that 1) is the most nasty way of presenting the information, leaving out great swabs of material that would give a full understanding and context; 2) Overemphasis of doctrine that either is not taught very often or more likely is at best on the "speculation" radar. What they don't say is the actual Central tenants of the Mormon Faith.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
My uncle who is a "Assembly of God" (I don't know what a single follower of this is called) and he's called mormons "bible butchers" in his belief that they've wickedley distorted the 'good book'.
I myself do not dislike mormons, and I've enjoyed the few times that I've been around them or gone to a church function of theirs, I'd actually like to read the book of mormon that the Church of Latter Day Saints keep offering me...I'd read if it wasn't for that fact that the minute I sign up for a copy I get 80 cajillion emails/junk mail...
Similar even happened a while ago, I signed up for an offer from a church and they kept sending me junk mail...
Posts: 163 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You get junk mail? If you want to read the BoM, e-mail me your address and I will send you your very own copy. No strings attatched, I promise not to sic the missionaries on you or use your address for any other purpose, and I will lose it as soon as your BoM is mailed. I'm safe, ask Hobbes. (I just sent him stuff.)
Seriously. If you want a Book of Mormon, I will send one to you. E-mail's in the profile.
Duh! I just realized-- if you don't mind reading online, it's available at lds.org. Just click on "Scriptures" on the left-hand taskbar.
posted
Doubleday's also come out with a nice hardcover copy available at bookstores, designed for those reading it for the first time.
It's funny because it certainly brings out the best and worst in people. People either rave and gush their testimonies, or they hate it with a lot of passion. I've never understood why people get so angry or want to destroy something that they don't agree with. Move on, people!
Personal faith really brings out the emotions, doesn't it?
posted
I'm LDS and I have several Baptist and non-denominational Christian friends. I remember when I accepted an invitation to attend a worship service, during which the pastor said several extremely negative (and wrong) things about the LDS religion. While it was very offensive to me, the part that upset me the most is that most of the people there believed his propaganda and will react with negativity towards my religion.
With that being said, whenver I hear the questions "Are Mormons Christian?", I think of Truman G Madsen's essay Are Christians Mormon? is an excellent response to the question.
Jesse
P.S. If anyone has additional questions or wants to discuss anything LDS related, please visit ZLMB .
Posts: 175 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That essay looks like it may be interesting if I can force myself to wade through the pomposity. Where did you first come across it?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's funny because it certainly brings out the best and worst in people. People either rave and gush their testimonies, or they hate it with a lot of passion.
Just to queer your overgeneralization a bit, I should point out that after reading the Book of Mormon, my overwhelming reaction was an unimpressed, but not particularly hateful, "meh." Coupled with a dismissive shrug of the shoulders, IIRC. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, that is the way you are with ALL religion. More a persnal character trait than a typical reaction to the Book of Mormon.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. There are a few religions I genuinely hate. Scientology, for example, makes me red n the face whenever it's discussed; I have no patience nor respect for its practicioners, and actively attempt to dissuade them away from it where possible.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably the biggest reason that so much confusion and misunderstandings abound about the LDS church is that for a lot of people, their idea of "independent research" when it comes to the topic of religion is "asking their preacher." It's like asking old-school M.D.s about the effectiveness of chiropracteurs. I thought this would begin to change in the age of the internet, but if you google "mormon" you're just as likely to find anti-Mormon and "ex-Mormon" websites as you are to find sites sympathetic to the faith.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all fairness, asking Mormons what Mormons believe will also result in some distortion in the other direction. Really, the best way to get a fair picture is to read both Mormon and anti-Mormon websites with skepticism filters set to high.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In all fairness, asking Mormons what Mormons believe will also result in some distortion in the other direction.
Is this because you think Mormons will lie about our beliefs, or that we are mistaken as to what we believe?
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mormons will deliberately avoid some of the more shocking and "non-Christian" elements of their doctrine when tracting; this is a conscious strategy, especially since the church wants a great deal to present a "mainstream" face to the world. I wouldn't call this lying, however; they won't deny those doctrinal elements when asked about them.
By the same token, there's ample disagreement and/or misinformation in Mormon culture about what is or is not doctrine, and merely asking random Mormons is unlikely to give anyone a consistent answer.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons will deliberately avoid some of the more shocking and "non-Christian" elements of their doctrine when tracting; this is a conscious strategy, especially since the church wants a great deal to present a "mainstream" face to the world.
Sorry, Tom, but that's garbage. If it happens, it is a personal issue, or a cultural one, but it is NOT official policy. To presume missionaries and/or members are taught to behave in such a way is false; it is NOT a "conscious strategy," and I would challenge you to prove otherwise.
Granted speculation is discouraged because people often try to ascribe reasons or justification for doctrine without any proof. Those speculations then circulate and people assume it's true. In this day and age of religions shifting their values and doctrine on a regular basis, the Church has a right to make sure the waters stay clear and truth stays truth. They would be remiss if they didn't.
But members are not discouraged to discuss certain issues to put on a face or act like we're something we're not. As a former missionary I fielded any and all questions that came my way (and I got some whoppers, believe you me), and encouraged people to learn for themselves. Whatever face the church shows in public is a face that has always been there--but they also have a right to emphasize common beliefs in the hopes of dispelling common misconceptions.
quote: Really, the best way to get a fair picture is to read both Mormon and anti-Mormon websites with skepticism filters set to high.
Geez, I can't even begin to say why this doesn't work. It's like trying to grow a garden by paving over the ground with cement. True understanding of spiritual things requires spiritual proof. Such a random, close-minded approach will never help you understand much at all.
Using spiritual tools––prayer, pondering, mental effort, sensitivity to spiritual impressions, exercise of faith--is the only method with any lasting power. It requires a faith not in the culture, not in speculation and assumptions, but in official doctrine from official sources.
I am cautious by nature and have a real problem with authority, especially when I feel it is not deserved. So when this faith tells me "You do not have to take our word for it; you can learn for yourself, independent of all else," I am impressed by such confidence. By taking advantage of the personal revelation every person is entitled to, we can know for ourselves. If I am unsure, I am free to always ask the original source––and I've yet to see doctrine or direction that I felt was completely off base. Even if I don't fully understand it.
quote:By the same token, there's ample disagreement and/or misinformation in Mormon culture about what is or is not doctrine, and merely asking random Mormons is unlikely to give anyone a consistent answer.
All this means is that Mormonism is not dogmatic about many things, although individual members can be. As for "hush, hush" about those deeper doctrinal issues; this place proves the very opposite. We have not stayed away from answering any questions. If you are talking just missionaries, it is not their job to go into isoteric information. They are on a mission to teach basic principals and let the investigators learn more information on their own. Most will help when asked, but such things detract from the message of the Gospel of Repentance and Baptism through the Atonement of Jesus Christ as taught by the Restoration (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Its not about appearing mainstream, but about staying with the main message.
Its not a new concept either, as it has been from the start of LDS missionary work a commandment to teach only those things.
quote:29 And thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see.
30 And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers.
31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.
quote: they also have a right to emphasize common beliefs in the hopes of dispelling common misconceptions
Absolutely. Which is exactly the same thing as de-emphasizing controversial doctrine, wouldn't you agree?
quote: So when this faith tells me "You do not have to take our word for it; you can learn for yourself, independent of all else," I am impressed by such confidence.
I would be, except that it didn't work for me at all. So YMMV.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you didn't say de-emphasis; you said avoid. Not the same word or have the same meaning. The former is talking about one part more and less about the other, the latter is not talking about a part at all.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Really, the best way to get a fair picture is to read both Mormon and anti-Mormon websites with skepticism filters set to high.
So to learn about any specific group, you think it is important to hear from those who love it and those who hate it? Would you say it is important to explore anti-Semitic literature in order to gain a fair understanding of Judaism? Or is this a situation unique to Mormons?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'm just running with the dichotomy set up; I don't find all "anti-Mormon" sites factually inaccurate or hateful, and consequently reject the comparison.
You may as well ask whether you should buy a car after only looking at its TV advertising. Mormonism already has a built-in "test drive" functionality, and some (although I'll freely agree not all) of the sites y'all call "anti-Mormon" function as a form of Consumer Reports.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, perhaps the sites you refer to are not, in your mind, anti-Mormon, but are simply trying to be objective the way Consumer Reports does? Remember, Consumer Reports tells both the bad and the good in a completely unbiased way. Such sites would not, in my mind, be anti-Mormon. But at the same time, can an outsider really understand a religion as well as a member of that religion?
If they actually were anti-Mormon, I wouldn't say your comparison is correct. It would be more like using the advertising and then going to someone who had a bad experience with the car.
Edit: Incidentally, this is how I feel about researching politics. Everything I see or read seems to lean one way or the other. I have seen no Consumer Reports of politics. Politics are too subjective and emotionally charged. I imagine religion tends to be similar. I guess it is easier to be objective about a washing machine.
quote:And unless they're asked, they won't talk about 'em at all. Is this inaccurate?
I would say yes and no on that one. They are talked about in an implied manner that is connected to the other things taught. On the other hand, it would take months and perhaps years to talk about every little detail and nuance of the LDS Church teachings. Missionaries are for setting people in a direction, not teach Seminary.
I agree with Beverly as well. You can tell an anti-sight by asking what positive vs. negative comments are made. True, that can go with what the LDS Church teaches as well. But, at the same time, it is as if you are saying "Fox News" isn't biased because it talks about one side of the political viewpoint that the others aren't.
posted
"Such sites would not, in my mind, be anti-Mormon."
Hey, like I said, it's not my dichotomy. Brian made the argument that if you Google Mormonism, you're as likely to come up with "anti-Mormon" sites as you are sites "sympathetic" to the faith. There's no mention there of a middle ground, although I certainly believe such a middle ground exists and is capable of providing factual information. The definition of "anti-Mormon" varies widely, however, so I just ran with the assumption that it's anything which isn't sympathetic to the faith. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The definition of "anti-Mormon" varies widely, however, so I just ran with the assumption that it's anything which isn't sympathetic to the faith. [Smile]
I personally would define "anti-Mormon" as something that tries to discredit Mormonism through distortion of facts. I have seen articles, like in newspaper or magazines or whatnot, that weren't "anti-Mormon" in my mind, but did get things off a bit. I just shrugged and figure they don't know how things actually are.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have a question; will you at least give credit that the Missionaries will talk about the "deeper" stuff when asked?
quote:Hey, like I said, it's not my dichotomy. Brian made the argument that if you Google Mormonism, you're as likely to come up with "anti-Mormon" sites as you are sites "sympathetic" to the faith. There's no mention there of a middle ground
Once again, however, your argument doesn't fit with the statement it seeks to comment on. Brian simply stated that you will find as many pro as anti sights with an Internet search. The implication is not that there WEREN'T any "nuetral" ones, as much as you wouldn't find them on an Internet search. The "dichotomy" definitions are your own based on a shadow argument.
posted
Hm. I thought I did. Reviewing my post, I can verify that I did; in fact, I specifically credited that behavior when explaining why I wouldn't call it "lying."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify: I was arguing that the internet isn't a reliable source for finding information, especially about a topic that an individual knows nothing about. I did not intend to set up a "dichotomy" of Mormon vs. anti-Mormon. I was simply offering my opinion on why many people still have silly misconceptions about the LDS faith. To sum up, it is because in general people are too lazy to become informed.
I did not intend the word "sympathetic" to mean "apologetic." In my mind, a site sympathetic to the Mormons does not have to actually believe the doctrine. In this definition, I consider a "neutral" site to be sympathetic. But there are a great deal of sites that like take on the appearance of being trustworthy and neutral, while in actuality are actively trying to convince people NOT to be Mormon. These are the only sites that I consider "anti-Mormon."
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
