I’m a debater cadolphin and an active member (currently teaching Gospel Doctrine). If enough questions come up that you don’t want to deal with, I’d be willing to field them over in Great Debates, if you’re interested?
Mind if I jump in here, cadolphin? I’m LDS too. (BTW, loved your thread rules–very complete!)
Depends what “they say.” It is true that official Church doctrine prohibited black men from holding the priesthood untill 1978, when said doctrine was repudiated. (Also true, but less known, that Joseph Smith–founder of the church–ordained a black man to the priesthood in the 19th century.) It is true that some Mormons throughout history have had some, uh, “unique” theories about why this racial ban was in effect, none of which are official doctrine. Go figure. (Read “unique” as “racist and kind of odd.”)
As for current policy and treatment: my wife is black and LDS, and nobody’s ever given her or me any crap about it. Nobody really mentions the ban anymore, but it’s not a taboo topic.
I’d be happy to answer further questions if you’d be so kind as to be more specific.
Early followers of Mormonism were sometimes attacked by locals as “wife stealers”, because it was feared they would attempt to abduct by force or otherwise seduce local females (married and unmarried) to join them in order to add to their polygamous harems. Was there any truth to this expectation or was it all anti-Mormon propaganda?
I recently went on a Tom Berenger kick, and saw this unusual film about the early years of Mormonism: Avenging Angel. It tells the story of a “Danite”, a guy who is sort of like a Mormon mercenary (sorry, I don’t know how else to word it). Danites protected the Mormon church and in the beginning of the film the main character almost “executes” a guy who supposedly betrayed the Church. (I can’t recall the whole story now, but I thought it was pretty interesting.)
Have any of you seen this film? Did you like it? Was it in any way historically accurate in your mind? Did you think it gave a pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon slant? (I left with an ambivalent feeling.)
I should say, the main character basically does “execute” a guy because he supposedly betrayed the church. (I was shocked by that!)
Kathy
PublicBlast and others, it is useful to distinguish doctrine from policy. Put simply, doctrine is what we consider eternal truths, what God commands, etc. (e.g., the family can remain a unit eternally). Policy is how we function in the real world, interpreting doctrine day-to-day (e.g., Family Home Evening on Mondays).
The restrictions on black men holding the priesthood were never doctrine from everything I’ve researched. There was never a revelation from God establishing it–rather it seems to have grown out of popular (but incorrect) civil-war-era belief that blacks were inferior, and then simply became established as practice. In 1978 we received a revelation clearly stating that all worthy men irrespective of race could hold the priesthood. Now that makes it doctrine.
Similarly, WRT the Word of Wisdom “hot drinks” has been interpreted to mean coffee and tea as explicitly prohibited substances. Over time, harmful drugs have also been included (I doubt they had methamphetamines back in the 1830’s), etc. That is policy, but not revealed doctrine. Make sense.
That explanation helps me answer the issue of caffeine as well. Some people have decided that the bad thing in coffee and tea is the caffeine. Additionally Bruce R. McConkie (who was quite the scriptural scholar, and wrote the book “Mormon Doctrine”–a poorly titles book) opined: “certainly the partaking of cola drinks, though not included within the measuring standard here set out, is in violation of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom.” As a result, there are a number of LDS believe that caffeine is verboten. While they are absolutely free to subit to more strict requirements than are demanded, they are not free to require it of others. This caffeine thing is a classic example of so-called “folk doctrine”–a teaching which many people believe in spite of its never being taught by the LDS church.
The most heinous example of “folk doctrine” has to do with blacks and the priesthood. It became common (and offensive) belief that blacks must have done something before birth to be born into a race which was denied the blessings of the priesthood. People trying to divine the “why” of the policy came up with a rationalization which was stunningly racist. Fortunately the 1978 revelation came to clear that all up (I sometimes wonder if God was hoping we’d figure it out on our own).
Interestingly, most LDS believed that blacks would receive the priesthood at some point, but didn’t know when it would be (McConkie suggested that it would be during the millenial reign of the Lord). In 1969, the First Presidency (the prophet and his counselors) made a statement about the issue, including saying, “we join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in the due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in his wisdom, and in his tender mercy.” The history, etc. of the whole issue are discussed in gory detail (including this 1969 statement) here.
(Side note: I’ve uniformly used the term “black” because the term “African-American” is woefully incorrect–it was a worldwide concern.)
Well, taking a few things at random:
The Word of Wisdom, as cadolphin has said, prohibits coffee and tea. Well, it really says ‘hot drinks,’ and current leaders have defined that as coffee and tea. (Note that we consider our president to be a real, live prophet, so what he says goes.) Caffeine is not necessarily the reason why; there are plenty of other chemicals in those drinks, and no reason is given. So any further interpretation is left up to personal decision. Some Mormons drink Coke all day long, some never touch it, and others decide that vegetarianism or sugar avoidance is for them.
Why isn’t any reason given? Well, no reason was given to the Jews for avoiding pork, either. We’ve had to figure out alcohol and tobacco and less meat for ourselves; I guess God likes us to use our minds. 
As for ‘illegal drugs’ vs. ‘legal drugs,’ schplebordnik, I would say that the difference lies not so much in the illegality or legality of drugs, but in the way we use them. Recreational use of drugs is not a good idea to us, and dependence on any drug (that isn’t keeping you alive or healthy, that is) is a bad thing. (We also believe in generally obeying the law.) Caffeine is actually a pretty good example here; it’s quite possible to be dependent on caffeine, so Mormons trying to keep the WoW who find themselves to be needing that daily Mountain Dew a little too much should quit.
Birth control: Families and children are very important to us. In general, we’re advised not to limit our families too much. For example, putting off having children for several years in order to establish yourself financially is not considered a good thing, and you shouldn’t limit yourself to one or two when you could handle more. LDS family size tends to run one or two more than average American family size; 5 is about the upper limit these days, at least where I live. But we do use birth control to space out children, stop when we’re tired, or have a few years at the start of a marriage–so pretty much like most people use it. Birth control is not forbidden, and I’ve only ever heard one or two people say they think it’s wrong to use it.
Bob55’s link does its best to twist scripture or writings to look quite contradictory. Not that everything we have agrees at every point, but some of that is really out of context. It would take forever to explain some of those things. So the short answer is: not particularly good, Bob. Any specific questions?
To explain the endowment a little, masonite: There are several steps of committment to the LDS Church. When a person is baptized, they take upon themselves the name of Christ and become official members of the Church. We do this with children at age 8, since a person has to know basically what they’re doing and the difference between right and wrong.
The endowment is a further commitment. A person will do this before serving a mission, getting married in the temple, or when they feel ready as an adult. It involves making some serious covenants with God about obedience to the commandments, and from then on you wear the garments as a symbolic reminder.
And pretty much every Mormon I know is perfectly happy and quite relieved not to have to live with polygamy. We do believe that it will be practiced in heaven; but not universally, and always by choice.
** Bob55** That is from an Anti-Mormon site. I’m offended you chose not to respect my guidelines for this thread. I will not respond to it.
However, because there are so many ligetimate questions here, I won’t ask for this thread to be closed as I stated I would.
Not this one time anyway. I hope no one else spoils it for all of you who have sincere, thoughtful questions, interest and curiousity by bringing another site such as that in here.
I will ask this thread be locked if it another anti-mormon site is posted!
emarkp I gladly turn the debates over to you.
Those who wish to debate, please form a line over in Great Debates 
PublicBlast Thank you so very much for your post! I loved it! I could have posted the church’s position pre and post 1978. I could even tell you where I was and what I was doing when I heard about it. I have some really good friends from many nationalities, but I don’t think I could have brought the insight and passion the answer you did
Kathy
Sorry, I’ve never even heard of the movie much less seen it. So I can’t answer any of your questions.
Kathy
I remember hearing about this in some of my religion classes (yes, a student at BYU is required to take a number of credits of religion classes before you can graduate).
As I remember it, there were many things being said out of fear. Mormon’s were different from other people. As we’ve all seen, it’s easy to fear what you don’t understand. Since those were the early days of the church there was a lot of fear and fear-motivated prosecution against the Church itself and Church members speficicly.
It’s 11:45pm now and I’m exhausted. I’ll look this up tomorrow astro and if I find more then what I’ve said here, or find that my memory has failed me, I’ll repost the answer.
genie do you have more to add on this situation?
goodnight everyone,
Kathy
Understood, cadolphin. Can’t expect you to review something you’ve never seen.
Has anyone else seen it? It made me curious as to how the Mormon community took it. It was a TNT movie and had some pretty heavy-duty stars. (It also had Charlton Heston as Brigham Young, James Coburn as an older “Danite”, the woman who played Jack Bauer’s wife from “24” was the main character’s love interest…). Surely one of you has seen it? I am all curiousity!
Also, do any of you know about the Danites? Did they really exist? Did they actually kill (or basically “execute”) people who betrayed the church?. This was a mainstream TV movie, and this is what they showed. There was a rather brutal murder in the start of the film that shocked me. I am curious as to how historically accurate the movie was.
Hi Cadolphin & Genie, and thanks very much for sharing. I’ve a few questions of my own.
-
Is the prophet always considered to be correct ie perfect? Or sometimes only ie. the Pope when speaking ex cathedra.
-
How many prophets are there, and what makes them prophets? (ie special qualities or attributes)
-
Have they ever contradicted each other? Or have different opinions?
-
Are their identities known and are these prophets worshipped or made special in any other form?
These are the few i can think of offhand. Thanks in advance for the reply.
yosemitebabe, it’s been my experience that when a movie has been made and someone is able to describe it as completely as you did, there is some basis in truth to it. It started bugging me that I couldn’t remember hearing anything about Danites so I came back to the puter. I knew I’d never get to sleep wondering… lol
I googled “Danites” and got 6, 880 hits! I started scanning through the list to see if any were from a sight I would consider good. Many of them are by anti-mormon sources and others are by former members of the church. I didn’t read any of them so I can’t say if they treated the subject fairly or with bias.
BINGO. One of my former Church History professors apparently wrote a paper on it. Danites by David J. Whittaker
When I saw that one, I knew his information would be well documented and I’m guessing a realiable source. I read what he had to say and now I’m even more confussed why I don’t remember that name. I recognized many other things he referenced in connection with them.
Let’s hope someone saw the movie and can fill us in on it.
Now, I’m really going to bed!
sotally tober, unless genie answers you first, I’ll answer your questions tomorrow.
Goodnight
Kathy
I am an ex-Mormon, though I’ve found religion to be a fascinating subject. I’ll respond to Bob55’s link, if one doesn’t mind.
First off, most of those “comparisons” take speeches or words out of context, or apply exact language definitions in areas where one source is in its original language, while the other is a translation. Obviously, some technical errors of nomenclature exist.
Mormonism holds that man’s spirit may ascend to the point where he, too, becomes a God in his own right, set to guide his own universe as he deems fit. Obviously, this results in a “plurality of Gods”, as Bruce R. McConkie is quoted as saying, yet only one God for us.
An analogy: There are numerous CEO’s in the world, but only one for a particular company.
To understand this one, you have to understand the timeline that Mormonism espouses. Prior to our universe’s creation, it is held that God was God. Ergo, as far as we, of this universe, are concerned, God has been eternal. However, Mormonism teaches that there have been existences long before our universe was created.
Similar criticism to that above… the attempt at slamming the LDS church is simply the result of being ignorant of the scale of time that Mormonism looks at with its beliefs of the pre-existence.
I see no criticism here, other than a selective - bordering on dishonest - taking of quotes out of context. Mormonism espouses that a soul is not truly ascended until it is Resurrected, as Jesus was… after Resurrected, body and soul are united for all time. Obviously, the person is still an “angel” (or a spirit). They just have a body.
If you like, I can get more into this. But by now, I’m starting to see just how much that “criticism” site will twists words.
Another criticism that’s ignorant on the matter of degree. Mormonism holds that, prior to our universe’s creation at the hand of God, all souls that have existed or will exist (in our universe) were already there, and chose their “side” prior to creation. Obviously, go back farther than that, and there will be a point where those souls did not exist, or something. Don’t ask me how reproduction happens in the pre- or after-life.
Now this one’s just a plain silly criticism, nitpicking the semantics of religious texts that have existed since Genesis.
The “sins” that are referred to is the sin of denying God and Jesus after having known his (His?) gospel. Christ said that in order to receive forgiveness, you must ask for it… obviously, someone who won’t ask for it won’t receive it.
Getting more and more absurd as I progress. No wonder Cadolphin didn’t want to waste his (her?) time with it.
In any case, saying “Jesus is God” or “God is Jesus,” in Mormonism, anyway, is akin to calling Batman and Robin the dynamic duo. Mormonism has consistently referred to God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost as separate entities - ones who work closely together, but separate entities - that comprise the Godhood. To claim that the totality of the Book of Mormon claims otherwise demonstrates an ignorance of the book.
Now this is silly, and blatantly wrong. Mormonism does believe in a Hell (called “Outer Darkness” so they can mention it when the 5-year-olds are about)… however, it believes that it is very, very, very difficult to be damned to Hell. For example, your garden-variety murderer won’t be sent to Hell… he or she will simply wind up in the Slums of Heaven, as it were.
I don’t see this as a criticism… simply a matter of hyperbole coupled with belief. Essentially, Mormonism holds that religions such as Catholicism have strayed from the true gospel, and that only it serves as the restored church. This is a consistent belief, and again, any who claim that the BoM says otherwise is either being dishonest or hasn’t read the book.
Now things have become absurd. To even give this criticism any validity, one must assume that God has already given his children a perfect knowledge of everything.
Lemme just scan ahead really quick…
Yup, yup, it just gets worse. Caldolphin, don’t worry in the slightest about not even bothering with that site. I’m not even in the church anymore, and even I recognize it to be rubbish.
A mormon minister/leader/elder(?) who was trying to recruit me at the time (around the time of the “black” revelation) told me that revelations come by way of God himself, in flesh and blood, sitting down in the president of the church in Salt Lake, and discussing it with the him face to face. He had pretty good rationalizations for some of the other stuff, but I couldn’t buy that one.
True?make that “sit down with the president in his Salt Lake office and discuss it face to face”
sorry
What would happen if the man in charge “got word” from God that now drinking tea was okay?
Would it seem inconsistent, or would you just assume God knew what He was talking about?
Myself, I drink tea and cannot see anything wrong with it, I am curious because God sometimes seems to make changes ; such as black men holding the preisthood, so maybe He would change this too.
If you don’t mind, cadolphin I’ll take a crack at this one.
The leadership of the church consists of the President of the church (currently Gordon B. Hinckley) and two counsellors, which form the First Presidency, and also the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, along with other “General Authorities” who assist with administrative and other matters.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are considered to be Prophets, Seers and Revelators.
We do not “worship” them in the same sense that we worship God or Jesus, but we do honor and respect them.
The President of the Church is considered to be the Lord’s mouthpiece, just as Moses or Abraham or other prophets, and while not considered “infallible” in the same way as the Pope is considered by Catholics, the Lord has said that he will not allow his prophets to lead the people astray.
When the President of the Church dies, power reverts to the Quorum of the Twelve, who choose the next President. Historically, this has always been the President of the Quorum (the one who has served the longest).
As vacancies occur in the Quorum, the members meet together in prayer to select and call another to serve.