tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post6373479564926365004..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "Among the Principal Ancestors": Unpricipled Objections to a Change in the Book of Mormon's IntroductionJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37554590660992649922007-12-03T14:17:00.000-06:002007-12-03T14:17:00.000-06:00Catholic Defender,John Piper talks about this cont...Catholic Defender,<BR/><BR/>John Piper talks about this controversial subject of abortion in his talk entitled, "Abortion and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". As ever, I've posted it onto my make-shift blog =)<BR/><BR/>Take care,<BR/>NatNMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019089593824237385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57208007676455589422007-12-03T14:08:00.000-06:002007-12-03T14:08:00.000-06:00Dear LTFBUG,I don't want to seem rude, nor do I wa...Dear LTFBUG,<BR/><BR/>I don't want to seem rude, nor do I want to belabour the point much further since I think continued discussion is drawing quite far from the original blog question, and the point of my own response. That said, I will respond briefly. Thank you for taking the time to provide me with the various websites that you have. In making my comments earlier in this posting, I had already consulted the websites you suggested. In fact, the text I posted regarding your church's position on abortion came directly from one of those websites. <BR/><BR/>I believe that I have researched the issue sufficiently by reviewing your church's teachings and by speaking with your own elders and bishops to say that I can not find myself adopting the LDS Viewpoint on abortion anytime in the near future. Someone here said that the LDS Church ultimately leaves the decision to the mother, and that aborting a child as allowed under LDS Doctrine is close to murder, but isn't. Well let me pose this question: If abortion is not the taking of the life of an innocent child, which is a definition of murder, then what else would it be? <BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34865573602880667562007-12-01T22:30:00.000-06:002007-12-01T22:30:00.000-06:00Catholic Defender: I'm giving some links that I h...Catholic Defender: I'm giving some links that I hope will offer valuable insight into Latter-day Saint belief regarding abortion.<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c79b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=29a518e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c31c226fecfdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7755a1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3d0c66ce3a47b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4299767978c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=43de991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=dfae535cedb1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1<BR/><BR/>http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7c86605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30789636878939932292007-11-19T23:33:00.000-06:002007-11-19T23:33:00.000-06:00CD said:"When your church says all life is sacred,...CD said:<BR/><BR/>"When your church says all life is sacred, as seems to be the case, then your doctrine needs to be consistent with that view point. It does not appear that your doctrine is consistent with a prolife view point." <BR/><BR/>I don't think the Mormons at large have the same black and white view that says "all life is sacred. Most in the past and maybe now believe in capital punishment, and like Jeff stated, although, the church discourges an abortion, this decision must rest on the mother. It is not murder but close to it and need to be discourged but a different punishment would be applyed. I know that most Catholics do not agree but this is how the LDS church deals with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77191130381522370272007-11-19T12:18:00.000-06:002007-11-19T12:18:00.000-06:00Hello Again,I wanted to respond to another aspect ...Hello Again,<BR/><BR/>I wanted to respond to another aspect of a criticism made by Jeff to a response I wrote. Regarding black and white doctrine, I actually do agree that when we think of things in terms of black and white, right and wrong, we are setting up unjust criticism and potential condemnation of others. Much of the world we live in can, and should be viewed in shades of gray, not black and white. But, when you're talking about issues of life and death, there really isn't a "gray" way to view it. I really wasn't trying to get into a debate about the morality of abortion, I was actually trying to make a point about consistency. We could debate abortion till the cows come home and never reach a consensus. But, the point I was making as it relates to consistency is that the views of your church do need to be consistent. When your church says all life is sacred, as seems to be the case, then your doctrine needs to be consistent with that view point. It does not appear that your doctrine is consistent with a prolife view point. That issue really is a black and white issue. Either all life is sacred, or it isn't. <BR/><BR/>I happen to agree with the aspect of your church that God does still give revelation to us. Who he gives it to and who has authority to interpret that revelation is where I disagree. I don't believe that Joseph Smith was one of those people who recieved revelation from God. I don't discount the possibility that he could have, I just don't believe that he did. That's okay. Just like its okay for you to disagree with my church's stance on reciept of revelation from Mary. <BR/><BR/>You criticize me for not using examples, then when I do use examples, you criticize me for using examples that are at the forefront of the debate. Frankly polygamy and your doctrine on Blacks holding the priesthood are the most well known issues pertaining to your church. There are a number of others that could be touched upon, but the points I was raising, seemed to fit those examples. <BR/><BR/>sincerely<BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56401535620185029932007-11-19T07:32:00.000-06:002007-11-19T07:32:00.000-06:00Good Morning All,Jeff, Just a brief response. I m...Good Morning All,<BR/><BR/>Jeff, Just a brief response. I may seem to take anti-mormon information at face value. In reading my responses, that does appear to be the case. Unfortunately that is a limitation to the written form of our language I haven't figured out how to remedy. The truth is, I view the anti-mormon literature just as skeptically as I view the pro-mormon literature. Both sides have a strong motive to fabricate and distort the truth, and both seem to take the opportunity to do so when it suits then. What is more accurate to say is that I view the anti-mormon literature with a fair amount of skeptism, but I am not willing to overlook the claims made. There is truth is some of the anti-mormon literature, albeit distorted at times, but there is truth there. That being the case, it should not be overlooked. I actually wasn't overlooking Exodus, and the law of Moses which basically claims an eye for an eye. But you have to read that in context with Jesus' new commandment which says turn the other cheek. He abrogated the whole eye for an eye teaching in favour of one of forgiveness. In that we really should take a lesson from the Amish who actually do live that doctrine; a claim none of our christian faiths can claim.<BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85958626539055570362007-11-17T11:29:00.000-06:002007-11-17T11:29:00.000-06:00CD, you seem rather willing to take anti-Mormon li...CD, you seem rather willing to take anti-Mormon literature at face value and regurgitate their claims as if they are authoritative. When challenged, you don't support your claims and simply reiterate them or offer some warped reasoning that strikes me as indicating a failure to do your homework before speaking so authoritatively.<BR/><BR/>To suggest that LDS revelations are just for political convenience shows a possible lack of understanding about the history of the Church, though I understand that the anti sites repeat these charges all the time. But there is more to the story.<BR/><BR/>You condemn "the convenience of LDS revelations" when there are only two revelations out of many that you can point to, and in both cases such a conclusion may be unfair. It would have been "convenient" in the 1960s and early 1970s to change the policy - not official doctrine or revelation - on blacks and the priesthood, when the Church was facing dramatic political and social pressure. 1978 was not the time of peak pressure - it was not an event motivated by Federal threats. And it would have been "convenient" to tone down polygamy in the 1860s and especially in the 1870s when the Church was being disenfranchised and LDS leaders jailed for their religious practice. 1890 was a bit late for mere "convenience."<BR/><BR/>Revelation historically is precipitated by events and challenges that prophets and apostles have faced. Whether it is a revelation about tobacco in the church or the threat of a civil war, or a more ancient revelation about Gentile converts in Acts or policies regarding foreign threats in Isaiah's day, revelations often involve the prophet turning to the Lord in light of outside events that raise issues requiring revelation. The revelation then often gives a lot more than was asked for. In a sense, revelations are frequently "topical" and linked to events of the day, motivating a prophet to seek wisdom from the Lord. Call this "convenient" if you will, but are you prepared to discard the prophecies of the Bible as well for their alleged "convenience"?<BR/><BR/>For background on the issue of blacks the priesthood, including reasons why it is wrong to think of that policy as doctrine, see my review of <A HREF="http://www.jefflindsay.com/black.shtml" REL="nofollow">the book <I>Black and Mormon</I></A> and my <A HREF="http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml" REL="nofollow">LDSFAQ page on blacks and the priesthood</A>.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31144049936382993902007-11-16T23:13:00.000-06:002007-11-16T23:13:00.000-06:00How did Russel and CD miss this Exodus 21:22-25? I...How did Russel and CD miss this Exodus 21:22-25? I guess we all need to read our scriptures closer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13951217832104320692007-11-16T23:08:00.000-06:002007-11-16T23:08:00.000-06:00Thanks for that post, I had forgotten Exodus 21:22...Thanks for that post, I had forgotten Exodus 21:22-25 when I read the Old Testiment years ago. I guess the Hebrew G-d would and did give such a revelation. As a convert I always wondered about the churchs stand on this issue. Now I have some clearity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81335774891983347782007-11-16T22:12:00.000-06:002007-11-16T22:12:00.000-06:00CD: "There are no exceptions, either you believe a...CD: <I>"There are no exceptions, either you believe all life is sacred or you don't."</I><BR/><BR/>I hope this doesn't apply in this case, but in general, I've seen that absolute, no-exceptions statements are often the ones that lead to unpleasant extremism and unjustified condemnation of others. The principle may be correct - e.g., life is sacred - but the unthinking application of that principle by those who want everything to be black and white (with their views being the only "white" ones, of course) can be problematic. For example, if all life is sacred, how can we accept capital punishment - a practice encouraged by the Bible? How can we use weapons to defend ourselves or to attack enemies, as Israel did in the Bible? Do we let a mother die when her life is in certain jeopardy by her pregnancy?<BR/><BR/>The Old Testament makes a distinction between manslaughter and fatal injury to a fetus. Consider <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%20;&version=31;" REL="nofollow">Exodus 21</A>: <I> 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or miscarriages] but there is no serious injury [to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury [to the mother], you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."</I><BR/><BR/>This makes a clear distinction between injuring an adult female and causing the miscarriage of a fetus. The latter is much less serious in this case. In fact, the Bible seems quite silent on the issue of abortion, and many Jewish scholars maintain that abortion was not considered a serious crime in ancient Jewish law. <BR/><BR/>So is it biblically correct to automatically equate abortion under any circumstances with murder? Or has there been a more recent convenient revelation on this principle that I missed, CD?<BR/><BR/>The Church offers strong and persistent opposition to abortion. Even though there are some very rare cases where the decision is left to the parents, the Church has emphasized that this does not mean that it can be assumed to be right, and that this decision must be made with great caution. But as in all aspects of life, there are complexities that must be faced, and we must be cautious in condemning others who grapple with them.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-51751285832670484602007-11-16T15:07:00.000-06:002007-11-16T15:07:00.000-06:00I don't claim to know what God has in store for us...I don't claim to know what God has in store for us. Thats why we pray about everything. Dang angel of light must have been lying to us again. Please excuse my tongue in cheek replies. I am quite the clown most of the time and try not to take myself too seriously, most of the time.bunkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09091655088509351675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47058561384754410452007-11-16T14:17:00.000-06:002007-11-16T14:17:00.000-06:00Hey Latter Day James, I thought we were the only o...Hey Latter Day James, I thought we were the only ones with statutes in the closet :-) Just kidding. I never said you guys worshipped JS, but sometimes it seems that way. I've been in your chapels though, and I know that they are fairly sparse with decor inside the actual chapel part so as to not detract from the prayerful worship therein. I think you may have missed the point of my comment regarding worship of a different God. You believe in a God that would give one inspiration to end an unborn, and innocent child's life, merely because the child is the product of rape or incest, or is likely to suffer from some severe physical defect, or the mother's life is in jeopardy. The God I believe in, and the God of Abraham and Moses, and the entire Hebrew Peoples would not give such a revelation. Such conduct or inspiration is inconsistent with the message Jesus conveyed to us, and such inspiration seems inconsistent with a pro-life stance. <BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52347249159978968262007-11-16T10:28:00.000-06:002007-11-16T10:28:00.000-06:00Catholic Defender:"A church that says it believes ...Catholic Defender:<BR/><BR/>"A church that says it believes in the sanctity of life can not then incorporate an exception to that belief and remain consistent with the underlying pro-life stance. That’s problematic. Additionally, from my vantage point, it supports a notion that we do not worship the same God. The God I believe in doesn’t condone murder in any sense. What your church seems to teach is that God will condone it if A and B are both true. That’s problematic to me."<BR/><BR/><BR/>O yeah thats right. We still worship little statues of Joseph Smith in church on Sundays. At home we have to settle for little busts of Joseph to pray to.<BR/><BR/>Cmon CD, we worship the same God that commanded Moses to free Israel, the same God that created the Earth. We just interpret some things differently.<BR/><BR/>"What your church seems to teach is that God will condone it if A and B are both true. That’s problematic to me."<BR/><BR/>This is why the "B" requirement is there. Who else better to give the exception but God through inspiration of the Holy Ghost? You have got to remember that Heavenly Father loves us and even answers prayers of the lowliest of us all. We may not get the answer we desire but thats another topic.bunkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09091655088509351675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20162840796535141182007-11-16T09:11:00.000-06:002007-11-16T09:11:00.000-06:00Good Morning Again,I’ll try to respond here and tr...Good Morning Again,<BR/><BR/>I’ll try to respond here and try to bring my response back on topic. Jeff, I apologize if I dragged this too far off topic with my comments. That wasn’t what I intended. <BR/><BR/>Russell, in answer to your questions, first, I’ve stopped getting offended by what people say about my church. In case you hadn’t seen the news recently, we Catholics have been the brunt of criticism for a great many years. There aren’t too many insults you can throw at me that would get a rise anymore because people will say what they will say, they will believe what they will believe, and they will worship how they will worship, and we won’t all agree on all things at all times. If you believe that I accused you of being ignorant of your church’s doctrines, I apologize, that was not what I was trying to say at all. <BR/><BR/>In answer to your second question, yes, I do interpret the exceptions in your churches teachings to be a pro-choice stance; if you disagree with me that is okay. The point I was making in bringing up your church’s stance was that its an inconsistent stance. On the one hand your church promotes a pro-life doctrine, but recognizes exceptions to that doctrine that just happen to be the sticking points in the political debate on the issue. From this vantage point, you either defend life from conception to the grave, or you don’t. There are no exceptions, either you believe all life is sacred or you don’t. That’s the point I was making. <BR/><BR/>Latter Day James, I am familiar and actually do understand how the exceptions work in your church’s teachings. I understand that it takes both A and B in order to obtain an exception. But my above response will explain why I do not agree with you. A church that says it believes in the sanctity of life can not then incorporate an exception to that belief and remain consistent with the underlying pro-life stance. That’s problematic. Additionally, from my vantage point, it supports a notion that we do not worship the same God. The God I believe in doesn’t condone murder in any sense. What your church seems to teach is that God will condone it if A and B are both true. That’s problematic to me. <BR/><BR/>To tie this all back to the topic at hand though let me say this. Both of our churches have actually changed their teachings on a number of issues. I’m not ignorant of that when it comes to my church. But, the way your church goes about it, and the timing of when it goes about it, call into question the very validity of the changes made. It’s extremely difficult to take your church seriously, and to trust your church leaders, when the very teachings they espouse for years, seem to change when the political pressure becomes too much. Maybe that isn’t actually the case, and maybe your prophet does actually get divine revelation to make the changes he does. But from this side of the coin his divine revelation seems to always coincide with the criticisms your church faces. That makes it very difficult to believe your prophet is divinely inspired. Call that throwing stones if you will, it isn’t meant that way, I’m merely pointing out a problem we non-mormons have with the way alleged revelation occurs. <BR/><BR/>Sincerely<BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17216372180370273672007-11-15T23:06:00.000-06:002007-11-15T23:06:00.000-06:00"Actually Russell part of the concern that I have ..."Actually Russell part of the concern that I have with your church is that it does appear to be a bunch of people blindly following men in suits."<BR/><BR/>Count me in, just a nother mind less robot mormon. After reading all the web links offered just on Jeff's Mormanity looking at all different topics, with all different oppions and people think we are not able to act and think for ourselve. No matter what we do they will always throw stones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30736418695846152892007-11-15T23:02:00.000-06:002007-11-15T23:02:00.000-06:00I always interpreted "principal ancestors of the A...I always interpreted "principal ancestors of the American Indians" to mean "most spiritially important" and not "only" or "most genetically important"<BR/><BR/>I see the change in the intoduction as serving to clarify what was intended by the text which is oft misunderstood as meaning of words change.David Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11266046963020498076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-71979287236893607872007-11-15T19:53:00.000-06:002007-11-15T19:53:00.000-06:00C.D.Perhaps you would get irked to if you were acc...C.D.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you would get irked to if you were accused of being ignorant of Catholic doctrine...esp. when you aren't.<BR/><BR/><BR/>First of all, no one--again--no one is claiming that this change is revelation. It's not even new...we've never claimed to know the peoples in the BOM very well (and let me just save you trouble--I know all the J.S. quotes on the topic). This is just a way to show that there's wiggle room on the topic.<BR/><BR/>Second of all, if you call that position pro-choice in any way--ANY WAY--you've been up too late in the night. "One of the most sinful practices" in modern society is hardly the product of mincing words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76483674345223740302007-11-15T18:23:00.000-06:002007-11-15T18:23:00.000-06:00Catholic Defender:You quoted from the Church websi...Catholic Defender:<BR/><BR/>You quoted from the Church website correctly but maybe you misunderstand its meaning?<BR/><BR/>When it says "Church members are counseled that they should consider abortion in such cases only after consulting with their bishop and receiving divine confirmation through prayer." This means if they meet the requirements mentioned just before that. <BR/><BR/>Which are "except in cases such as pregnancy resulting from incest or rape, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy or that the fetus is so severely defective that it cannot survive birth".<BR/><BR/>After this it says "But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. "<BR/><BR/>Does this make sense?<BR/><BR/>If there are 2 reasons for abortion A and B.<BR/><BR/>If A is the reason for abortion for incest, rape etc and B is because of inspiration then this doesn't mean if A or B is true then get the abortion. <BR/><BR/>It means if A AND B are true then have the abortion. Not just one or the other. But both must be met.bunkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09091655088509351675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61010316215963014542007-11-15T12:50:00.000-06:002007-11-15T12:50:00.000-06:00Dear Russell,Below is a copy of information I foun...Dear Russell,<BR/><BR/>Below is a copy of information I found by going to LDS.ORG and typing in abortion. This is directly copied from the official website of the Church of Latter Day Saints. You can check it yourself if you choose. I tried to get the full page with the actual church letterhead to copy here so that you'd know it was authentic but it would not do so.<BR/><BR/>BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY <BR/> Practices and Beliefs : Positions on Controversial Issues <BR/><BR/> What is the Latter-day Saint position on abortion? <BR/><BR/> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers the elective termination of pregnancy one of the most sinful practices of modern society, though abortion is not necessarily murder. The Lord has commanded, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Members of the Church must not submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion, except in cases such as pregnancy resulting from incest or rape, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy or that the fetus is so severely defective that it cannot survive birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Church members are counseled that they should consider abortion in such cases only after consulting with their bishop and receiving divine confirmation through prayer. Church members who encourage, perform, or submit to an abortion are subject to Church discipline as appropriate to help them repent.<BR/><BR/>abstracted from "Abortion," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:7.<BR/> The abstracts on this site have been prepared by BYU Studies staff and interns. <BR/><BR/>Related Questions<BR/>What is the proclamation to the world on the family? <BR/>What is a bishop? <BR/>Where are Latter-day Saints on the political spectrum? <BR/>What is the Latter-day Saint position on separation of church and state? <BR/> <BR/><BR/>site map | submit a question | contact us | site feedback | about us | subscribe to BYU Studies <BR/><BR/>Please note the exceptions to your church's official pro-life stance are exactly as I said they were.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely <BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18203958560203342122007-11-15T12:24:00.000-06:002007-11-15T12:24:00.000-06:00Actually Russell part of the concern that I have w...Actually Russell part of the concern that I have with your church is that it does appear to be a bunch of people blindly following men in suits. Maybe that isn't actually the case, but following up on that subject would really draw this conversation off topic. <BR/><BR/>With regard to your request for citations, perhaps I misread your posting, but it seemed to be directed to black avenger not me. I'll see what I can do about providing citations. I will tell you though the members I've spoken to are actually bishops and high counsel members, leaders in your church. Do you consider them to be misguided hacks? An interesting question, also off topic, which I believe actually had to do with changing the BOM. My posting, if you'll actually read it without getting offended was merely pointing out the difficulties those of us who don't believe your church to be true have with regard to alleged new revelation on the part of your leaders. It appears so convenient and coincidental that it calls the whole divinity of the revelation into question.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely <BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42030227354333118502007-11-15T11:23:00.000-06:002007-11-15T11:23:00.000-06:00Regarding the abortion statement I made, I suggest...Regarding the abortion statement I made, I suggest you folks really dig deep into your churches doctrine before you criticize and condemn me. Talk to your stake presidents and your bishops, discuss it with your elders, and write to your church leaders. I submit that you will find what I have said to be true. I say that because I have gotten that information not from any anti-mormon website but from your own members. So before you condemn me, pose the question to your leaders and see what you find out<BR/><BR/>You're TALKING to one of my own members. Do you consider me some ignorant knave, blindly following a bunch of suits, utterly ignorant of my own convictions? Or, perhaps a step up, as an unprincipled Mormon hack willing to defend anything at any price? You need to be willing to accept that the Mormons might actually know what they believe. <BR/><BR/>It's apparent you didn't even read my message. You refuse to provide citations; in fact you refuse to do anything but restate your position.<BR/><BR/>We need evidence. That's how this game works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20864183455103542402007-11-15T08:11:00.000-06:002007-11-15T08:11:00.000-06:00Wow, what a can of worms I opened. I seem to have...Wow, what a can of worms I opened. I seem to have that effect on people. Let me respond here before you condemn me. <BR/><BR/>First, to Black Avenger,<BR/><BR/>Are you at all familiar with your church’s history or the Mark of Cain Doctrine? If not, let me explain that to you. I will admit that I may have gotten the author of the doctrine wrong in blaming Joseph Smith. The Mark of Cain Doctrine appears to have been authored by Brigham Young, though I’m sure to be corrected on that point if I am wrong. But just the same, it was more than a policy of your church to discriminate against blacks, it was doctrinal dogma. Basically the doctrine goes this way. Blacks could not hold the priesthood because they were unworthy to do so. Why, you ask, because according to the doctrine, men of colour bore the mark of Cain and were essentially cast off by God. That was the actual teaching of your church until 1978 when Spencer Kimball had his alleged revelation.<BR/><BR/>This was doctrine not policy, here’s why. Consider that when the Mark of Cain Doctrine was instituted, slavery was still widely practiced and the civil war had not yet begun. Lincoln had not issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution had not even been contemplated. Racism and discrimination against blacks were widely practiced in our country. Unfortunately racism and discrimination are still widely practiced in this country, which is a poor testament of the state of our country, but that’s another issue for another day. Anyway, were it simply a policy to discriminate against blacks brought about by the times in the early and mid 1800’s then it stands to reason that policy would change somewhere around 1865 when the Civil War ends and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are issued. Or maybe your church would change policy when segregation ends in the 1950’s, or perhaps after the civil rights movement in the 1960’s. Your church didn’t change its so called policy. It continued to say black men are unworthy to share in the priesthood. <BR/><BR/>Now move through history a bit. From 1865 through to 1964 you see desegregation, integration of schools, blacks being awarded voting rights, an entire civil rights movement to bring about equality. But all through that, your church continues to preach that black men are unworthy to hold the priesthood. It isn’t until 14 years after the Civil Rights movement that your church changes it’s position and finally decides that black men are worthy to hold the priesthood. 1978 was a significant change in Mormon Doctrine. But, the reality is black men were always worthy to be welcomed in God’s house. Your church didn’t think so until 1978. So why the sudden change? Was it really divine revelation or did Spencer cave into political pressure. The problem is there’s no real way to know. You may not like what I have said, but the fact is your church did have a doctrine to discriminate against blacks. It practiced that doctrine for well over a hundred years after slavery ended and blacks were given rights under the Constitution. You can not deny that. And the revelation to end that discrimination, while a correct thing to do, seems not driven by divine inspiration, but more from a need to placate the people. I may actually be wrong, but from my vantage point, I don’t think so.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the abortion statement I made, I suggest you folks really dig deep into your churches doctrine before you criticize and condemn me. Talk to your stake presidents and your bishops, discuss it with your elders, and write to your church leaders. I submit that you will find what I have said to be true. I say that because I have gotten that information not from any anti-mormon website but from your own members. So before you condemn me, pose the question to your leaders and see what you find out. <BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/><BR/>Catholic DefenderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18062544387646079402007-11-15T07:39:00.000-06:002007-11-15T07:39:00.000-06:00Russel, said:"I noticed that any citations per B.A...Russel, said:<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I noticed that any citations per B.A.'s request are missing. Why is that?"<BR/><BR/>I don't understand your point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38761815120088048212007-11-15T00:13:00.000-06:002007-11-15T00:13:00.000-06:00Anon:I noticed that any citations per B.A.'s reque...Anon:<BR/><BR/>I noticed that any citations per B.A.'s request are missing. Why is that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-17248135314247551982007-11-14T23:58:00.000-06:002007-11-14T23:58:00.000-06:00Black Avenger, said:"I'm disappointed with how slo...Black Avenger, said:<BR/><BR/>"I'm disappointed with how sloppy you are in discussing and criticizing the Church."<BR/><BR/>I agree, most people don't research and will never except what the church states as history they just take the worse critics and use them. Having said this, until I joinded the LDS church and started reading all I could about my church and then reading about other churchs from their view did I find that I too misjudged other religions. If you are not willing to put in the time studying you will never see both sides if the story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com