And I thought I answered the question when I stated, yes, the goal is to become like God. I’m still not clear on what these Eternal Rules are/were; that’s not a phrase I’ve ever heard before.
Perhaps one thing is unclear (and indeed, this seems to be a big hot button when it comes to discussing Mormon beliefs). That which is taught, stated, or written by spiritual leaders in the church – including El Presidente – is not necessarily the actual doctrine of the church, or, for that matter, completely valid. Unless it is stated that it is a revelation (“Shut up and pay attention, kids, the Big Cheese has spoken”), it is not doctrine.
This has led to LOTS of controversy. Because (IMO) certain folks who really should’ve known better tried to explain things and ended up muddying the waters. They’d’ve done better to keep their traps shut.
So. Just because it was ol’ Brig himself who said it doesn’t mean it’s doctrine, unless it is an actual revelation (which there’s a pretty detailed process for). A lot of the stuff about blacks – they’re evil, they’ll change color, etc. – is not and never was doctrine; it may have been taught, but one of the first things every Mormon is also taught is to come to their own understanding of the doctrine of the church and to reject that which does not seem right.
No, thanks, I’ve done plenty of that in my day. I’m not a member of the LDS religion, by my own choice; I’m starting to wonder why I’m even here trying to explain things.
Christ, can nobody READ? I was making an analogy. I was saying (and I even explained, in a later post) “If you want to justify it to yourself, here’s one way”. Ok? I never said that the church allowed heirs to make decisions for the deceased, and I’ve been EXCEEDINGLY careful to point out at every turn that doctrine states that EVEN THOUGH the living are performing ordinances for the dead, the dead can still choose to accept or reject them. There is no contradiction of free will here.
Of all the things Mormonism has that can be confusing, I honestly thought this was among the simplest.
Maybe so. Again, I did not become a member until the mid 80’s, so whatever happened before that is none of my pidgin.
I can state that I was never encouraged to take the stories literally, but instead to reflect on them, think about them, and decide for myself what truth, if any, they held. They were taught to me the same way I was taught fairy tales - a story with a life lesson attached.
Guiding, as I understand it, is not exactly the same (or not always, anyway) as a big sign saying “THOU SHALT DO THIS” with a burning bush underneath. When the prophet of the church has a revelation, that’s God reaching down to show us poor mortals the way. When the prophet simply talks about his beliefs, that’s him speaking, not the Big Guy. Since he is, y’know, the leader of the church and all, you’d do well to at least listen to him, but you’re supposed to reflect on it yourself and reject it if you find it false.
Simply put: when he issues a revelation, he’s the mouthpiece for God. When he’s preaching from the pulpit (heh), he’s himself. Yeah, he oughta consider what he says a mite more carefully from time to time, but everyone makes mistakes.
I note above an apparently racist teaching by Kimball as a Mormon Apostle published in Mormon Doctrine. Considering that this means he was a part of the church governing body of 12 at the time he wrote that and that it has been published in an official publication describing itself as church doctrine, it seems reasonably evident that there’s a prima facie case for that being doctrine, which would need to be refuted.
However, in relation to both the Mormons and other groups, I’ve seen a strong tendency to pull some random quote off some polemic website in which the Rev. Frothingmouth Yahew, preacher of some random denomination, says something staggeringly stupid and/or offensive, and then the debunker of Christianity/that particular form of Christianity acts as though that were the officially sanctioned beliefs of that group or of Christianity in general.
“It don’t work that way,” people. Every group has their own private collection of “God, is he an embarrassment, or what? I wish he’d just shut up!” types, like the good Rev. Yahew. So be so kind, when you’re debunking, to at least validate that you’re working from something regarded as official and probative. BMax appears to have done this, with regard to Kimball. But I think it’s a worthwhile point to make, on a more general basis.
It wasn’t Kimball I was referring to. Kimball was the one who issued the revelation to allow blacks to have the priesthood in 1978. Kimball was homophobic and wrote letters to self-identified homosexuals pleading them to forsake their wickedness and return to the church.
Bruce R. McConkie was the one who wrote about “lack of valiance in the War in Heaven > being born a negro in this life” in a series of books called Mormon Doctrine as late as 1966. We can argue the finer points of “that’s not what the missionaries/my sunday school teacher told me” and “just because the prophet said it doesn’t make it mormon doctrine”, but when it’s in a book called Mormon Doctrine, written by an apostle, published by the church, I think that makes it official doctrine. These writings back up what Brigham Young had been saying a hundred years earlier in his capacity as Prophet, Seer & Revelator, so it appears to have been the thinking of Mormonism’s highest leadership for most of their history.
The mormon church is and has long been changing their teachings and history to match the moods and values of our changing society, starting as early as 1890 with their publicly abandoning the practice of plural marriage. Yes, I know that the church doesn’t actively teach the same crap about the races of humanity today. But they have never (to the best of my knowledge) published any doctrinal changes to the racist doctrine of the 1960s, and it was still considered “true”, though not talked about openly, when I left the church in the early-middle 1980s.
Now, IF dangermom or some other active mormon can refer to something published as ‘mormon doctrine’ stating that the doctrine of “lack of valiance in the War in Heaven > being born a negro in this life” is NOT the case, that would prove that it’s not actually their ‘truth’.
Well, Merry Christmans/happy cultural mid-winter celebration.
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to bow out of this, just when it becomes interesting. TokyoWife and I are leaving for Tawian and the Vietnam for our vacation and so I’ll not be visiting the boards.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to All!
Brigham Young never said “it doesn’t mean it’s doctrine.” In fact, in the Journal of Discourses, which was accepted as doctrinal in the early days of the LDS, he said:
Well, good morning, all; I see you’ve been having a wonderful time. We’re still doing a lot of family visit stuff and I’m taking my kids to storytime this morning, so I’ll be quick.
A massive amount of BMax’s statements are what we call “Folk doctrine,” or just plain rumor. There has been a lot of effort over the past 20 years or so to stamp some of it out, but some of it always persists. Folk doctrine is speculation or made-up stuff that sounds neat but isn’t true, or is unknown–essentially our version of urban legends. Often it takes the form of a rumor (a recent one is that the LDS Church is secretly calling missionaries to China, which was a re-working of one 20 years ago about the USSR; it was officially repudiated in the Church News a couple of weeks ago).
The one about black people and the pre-mortal existence was a particularly pernicious one, and serves as a spectacular example of why speculation can be harmful. The funny, and sad, thing is that it arose from a non-racist instinct; people couldn’t figure out why blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood (since they were clearly perfectly nice people and not personally unworthy), and came up with a “reason” that could be attributed to behavior before birth. Yes, Bruce R. McConkie endorsed it himself, in his book Mormon Doctrine, which is not in fact an encyclopedia of doctrine, and never was, and could more appropriately been titled The gospel according to Bruce R. McConkie. After the 1978 revelation, which was an enormous relief to LDS members, McConkie said:
What McConkie said is an illustration of a key theme in LDS thought: that current revelation and the current prophet’s teachings trump any past teachings on the subject. As we gradually try to overcome the darkness and ignorance that piled up in the past (and which keeps doing so), we try to get new light and knowledge that will help us progress further. In other words, sometimes even apostles and prophets have wrong opinions, and as we learn more, we have to forget those and keep learning (rather than clinging to wrong belief). The corollary to this is that we undoubtedly have some ideas now that are quite wrong and which will horrify everyone in 50 or 100 years. It then becomes our job to figure out where we are going wrong and fix it. LDS thought is one of continual purification of doctrine, and rooting out of wrong ideas–it is an ongoing process that continually fights against the natural human instinct to make up neat-sounding stories and believe them.
Now, some here have said that I am repudiating the doctrine of eternal progression. I have done no such thing. I do believe in eternal progression; as I said in the first part of this thread, we take the promise that we will be joint-heirs of Christ seriously. All I have done is to say that there is not a lot of concrete knowledge about the early origins of God and about our eventual destination. Personally I do believe the King Follett sermon; however, it was my intention to show that those details are not very well-understood or a matter that is dealt with in scripture. As much as I like the King Follett sermon, it is not considered scripture; it’s a teaching of Joseph Smith that we don’t necessarily understand very well, and not one which is “required” for baptism or temple worship. He knew a lot more than he ever said, and sometimes he said things that show that and give hints to something we have no clue about. In such cases it’s often better to leave it alone and not try to elaborate–we know what we need to in order to get through the day, and it’s not profitable to spend time in speculation.
So, off to the library. I hope you all had a lovely weekend, as I did. (See my thread in Cafe Society to see what I got! )
Look what happens: you go away for two weeks and the tread dies. I don’t know if dangermom is still around, but the reasoning was such as I had to respond. My apologies for the delay, but we didn’t have internet connections in either Taiwan or Vietnam.
I don’t know if this is a deliberate spin on the black mark on Mormonism (pun unintended); simple, but gross ignorance of Mormon history, or life in an alternative universe, but this leaves me speechless.
The only possible way in which any part of the above paragraph could resemble reality would be to substitute “prophets of God” for “people”. Then you have to delete the part about the “non-racist instinct” and the whole parenthetical thing.
From prophets starting with Brigham Young:
John Taylor (successor to BY)
And the scriptures:
Golly, as we used to say as missionaries, this is too easy.
OK, but what about more recent prophets. Let’s look at Joseph Fielding Smith, the President of the Church from with I was nine years old:
Again, the same author
JOSPEH FIELDING SMITH
Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66.
This attempt to spin the clear teachings of numerous prophets and apostles into well-meaning but misguided thoughts of ordinary members sums up the level of comprehension of the church by the OP. If I were in court, I think I’d rest my case here.
As an aside, why would it fall on an apostle to write this book? The reason is that the Church itself more often than not refuses to clarify its teachings. However, that said, on this subject Bruce R. McConkie is not the author of these teaching, but was simply repeating the prophets and apostles. It would not have been acceptable for him to deviate from the party line.
obviously you weren’t living in Salt Lake at the time. I was in high school and must have missed the parades.
All right. Somewhere that we can both agree. This is one of the difficulties of the Mormon Church, which is to attempt to shake all the wrong ideas, with the added difficulty that the very people who are making up neat-sounding stories are the so-called prophets of the Lord.
Who then to believe? If Brother Brigham can’t get it right about the blacks being as intelligent as the wonderful “white and pure” race, what else did he miss the bus on? (OK, bonus points to those who answered his most infamous teaching “God = Adam”.) Sure, the standard Mormon line is that prophets are humans too, and they are products of their times yada, yada, yada, but if in all the years Brigham Young was talking to God, this couldn’t have come up once or twice? It’s not like all American despised blacks at the time. You get the apostles, including Mark E. Peterson, an apostle of my youth, publishing racist statements through the 50s and 60s.
So what’s the deal? God cares quicker that people don’t pollute their bodies with coffee (revelation 1833) than they shouldn’t withhold blessings from a race of people (1978). OK, I understand that being a god means you’re really busy, but does it take 145 years to come around to civil rights? It certainly took plenty of time to update basic gender relationships and as long to look at sexual abuse. My mother was telling me about a conversation she had with my older brother (still a Mormon) about the sexual abuse within our family in the 70s, and the Church’s non-answer to it at the time. Their comments was that it was it would have been handled differently now. Moral of the story? It’s OK to be behind of the curve on social issues in you are divinely inspired.
If Dangermom has forgotten her response to the question if God was ever a man, let’s look at it again:
Further qualifications are above, but I think it can be reasonably argued that this is a clear teaching as anything Joseph Smith gave us.
So when questioned, what is so difficult about saying that yes, indeed, the Mormon Church believes that God was once like us? Why the need to spin? Why hide this or is this yet one more teaching when the [del]neat-sounding-story-makers[/del] modern prophets of God can’t quite get right?
Who knows, maybe God will decide someday that it doesn’t really matter if women have more than one pair of earrings, but until then, this is still the word. With this track record, I’m not holding my breath waiting for Him to reconsider if guys can also pierce their ears or why one’s eternal fate should do depend on not having two sets of earrings.
It’s available in in either one-piece or (much more popular) two piece versions. In both cases, the garment comes to the knee and just past the shoulder (more or less like a regular t-shirt in cut and fit). They are always white, except for special green ones for people in the military. The true distinguishing feature of the LDS temple garment is the four marks stitched into it: one on each breast, one at the belly button and one on the knee. The shape and significance of the marks has to do with the endowment ceremony LDS members participate in. You could probably find more detail on Wikipedia.
All of this runs counter to the claim, in the introduction page to the Book of Mormon (the most recent version, as well as every version of my lifetime), that the descendants of Lehi are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Any attempt to say, “well, maybe there were already lots of people here,” or “we can’t expect to find any DNA evidence,” is pretty clearly contradicted by the BoM itself.
Thanks for that, I did look on wiki as you suggested and it is interesting! I had mormon friends in high school and in gym class I wonder how did they wear little gym shorts without the undies sticking out? Do you take them off for certain activities like exercising?
People don’t get these until they go through the temple, which is a minimum age of 19 for guys, if they go on a mission. Women can’t go on missions until 21, if they aren’t married by then, as the instructions used to be specifically stated and can go then (or whenever they get married). I’m sure by now that they’ve solved the problem of women who aren’t either married or on a mission at 21.
Oh, sure, this is one of funniest things which came out of our sanitized thread. The whole Mormon experience through the early 80s, when I bailed was believing that the all the Indians were descendants of the Lehi. All the prophets from Joseph Smith on have taught it. Not a single one has signed on to the limited geography model, and yet for our Mormon friend here to write off 170 years of doctrine by claiming that this was a product of “people” not thinking enough goes beyond absurd.
Dangermom knows less about Mormon history and traditional Mormon teaching than an average Google searcher could find in a few minutes. At the very least, she should avoid using an authoritarian “we” to tag beliefs which could have had her excommunicated in the 70s.
Oh hey, there, sorry, didn’t see the resurrection. Sorry if you don’t like my beliefs; they’re shared by a lot of people. Bruce R. McConkie wasn’t an apostle when he wrote Mormon Doctrine, and the Apostles at the time weren’t necessarily thrilled with the book. I can see you’re doing fine without me, and I’m crazy busy right now, so have fun.
The question is not if I like or dislike your beliefs. The question is if the beliefs or the arguments are honest or not. I and others have pointed out a number of discrepancies and spins in your posts, and your failure to address them in noted.
Next, the argument that McConkie was or wasn’t an apostle when he wrote Mormon Doctrine is a red herring. OK, he wasn’t an apostle yet, but he was a General Authority, which placed him in the top 23 leaders of the church, instead of being in the top 15. For the question at hand, i.e., blacks in the preexistence, it matter not one whit. As previously noted and ignored, he was repeating doctrine which numerous prophets and apostles had taught.
Lastly, I’m just so completely impressed that many people share your beliefs. That makes me want to rejoin the Church. Of course, that will have to be after I join the Catholic Church, since so many more people who share those beliefs. If we are to judge things on a popularity contest, I guess you’ll have to wait in line for a while.
For Evil Joe, there’s an interesting story why the Mormon garments, as the underwear is called, is thought to have special powers. Incorporating Mason signs, the originally were a reminder of the death oaths the select early Mormons made to protect the secrecy of polygamy. When Joseph Smith was taken to jail, with several others, and then shot by a mob. He and his brother Hyrum were not wearing their garments, and died. John Taylor, also shot, was wearing his garments and survived. From that, in words of Dangermom we have a “neat-sounding” story which says that these garments have powers to protect the wearer. Note that this is not an official teaching of the Church, if we follow Dangermom’s standards.
)