jinc1019

Those are all fair points, but the difference I think is that...not only did the LDS Church clearly have a policy which was racist (whether it was supported by God or not), but they didn't receive a revelation to fix it until well after most other churches had. If the LDS Church is the restored church of God, why would God wait so long to restore a clearly false teaching? I know you would say that I have no right to question God...and I'm not. But the teaching that African men should be kept from the priesthood must have ALWAYS been false since African men did in fact occupy the priesthood early in church history. How it could be valid then and then not valid for over 100 years and then valid again? And all without any official revelation?

Mormons are, as far as I know, unique in that they are the only Christian denomination that I am aware of that requires a special priesthood for baptism. In every other denomination, all one needs to have a valid baptism is another Christian who was validly baptized. One of the potential problem areas I see with this view of baptismal authority for Mormons is that in the New Testament, it is quite clear that St. Paul was NOT baptized by someone who had any sort of a special priesthood or apostolic succession (Acts 22:16). How do Mormons explain this? If Paul did not receive his baptism from someone who had authority, according to Mormon teachings, was it a valid baptism?

Post #20. I understand your position, but that same church father you quoted could be used to espouse doctrines you reject.

I appreciate all of your responses. Apparently, I was incorrect in saying that certain benefits would be denied based on the inability for a man of African ethnicity to receive the priesthood because, as many of you pointed out, this could be offered after death and your theology states that God doesn't punish those who are in a position where a true choice is impossible. However, while I can understand the difficult position the church is in, it seems incredibly odd to me that God would choose NOT to withhold equal rights to African men in many other churches throughout the world prior to 1978 but would choose to keep Africans from enjoying the full life of the church in his one true restored church. I suppose God has his reasons for doing everything, but I will be honest...This issue really makes me doubt the validity of that claim. Whether that's fair or not, I don't know. What I do know though is that Jesus himself often ignored and deliberately violated certain commonly held social conventions in his day. It seems strange that God wouldn't do the same in his own church while it was happening in so many others.

I realize this is a sensitive subject for a variety of very obvious reasons, so let me start by saying definitively: I don't think Mormons are racist. However, I am having a very, very hard time understanding why the "Restored" church, which should really be better than the church that came before it, would prevent African-Americans from the priesthood. If the "priesthood" in Mormonism meant the same thing as it did in virtually every other denomination, this could be understood SOMEWHAT better, but given just how important the priesthood is in the LDS Church, why in the world would God want African-Americans to be denied a better place in the afterlife? Further, and really the larger issue at this point in time (since blacks were allowed to become priesthood holders in 1978), doesn't this make the claim that the LDS Church's leadership is a modern day prophet harder to believe? I know this is a tough question to deal with and I promise to be fair about it, but I am having a very difficult time understanding the seemingly convoluted position of the LDS Church on this issue.

Good to know.

I think it's understandable, it's just not very easy swallow. It's like the concept of infinity; it makes sense in one way and makes absolutely no sense in another.

I appreciate that and your kind words!

One example by the way is baptism and the authority to administer it. Many early church fathers believed baptism could be done by any Christian and that no special priesthood was necessary for it. Other early church fathers outright dismissed the need for apostolic succession as it is practiced (and mandated as a necessity) in your church.

I think the essence of your primary point here is very important. In reality, these two concepts are really not all that different. In both cases you have three in one. It's a matter of substance, as you put it. I think where things get a lot more dicey is when Mormons and Christians start talking about what Theosis means and what happens when we die. Few traditional Christians would ever consider Jesus their brother in a literal sense the way Mormons would. Why? Because the belief that we are born first in the spirit world by heavenly parents is rather unique to Mormonism. I am sure some early church father(s) did teach this, but as I already said, you can find early church fathers to support almost any view.

Again, see my comment about using the early church fathers to support a point.

I don't proclaim to be a church historian, but I am well read on these subjects and I don't totally disagree with most of your points. However, you are making the dangerous assumption that you know what the "church" believed or taught based on select writings from a select group of people. Honestly, it's very difficult to know what the majority of Christians believed on this subject prior to the 3rd century. Trinitarians would argue that it doesn't even matter whether or not most people prior to the 2nd century believed the Father and the Son were separate because all that matters is what the apostles truly taught..and what they taught has been preserved by apostolic succession. They would acknowledge that many bishops in apostolic succession disagreed with the Trinitarian view, but they would argue that the MAJORITY of bishops clearly did endorse it. If they didn't, it would never have been agreed upon. You suggest that other motives may have been at play, and maybe you are right. I don't rule that out. It is true that the "church" and "state" were quite intertwined at that point in history. But I don't think you can definitively prove your case about the Father and the Son being separate by pointing to church documents, which seem to suggest a whole lot of things very early on that your church rejects. For instance, you can find instances very early in church history of individuals who believed in a Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic feast. I am talking about 2nd century quotes, with some allusions in the 1st century (Didache). However, you will also find others who endorse, quite clearly, a symbolic view in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, although I think the Real Presence view has carried more favor by that point. My point is, early church fathers believed in all sorts of things. From universalism to eternal damnation, you can find almost any view in the early church fathers. This is why the Catholic Church ruled using a majority of its bishops who attended councils, and the majority of those bishops ruled that Trinitarian doctrine was correct and had been handed down since the apostles, either rightly or wrongly.

This is a good point, thanks for bringing that up.

To no avail, yes.

It seems odd to me though that in the Old Testament, in the New Testament, and in the entirety of the Book of Mormon, there is no mention of God being separate beings...If something as important as this were true, shouldn't it appear somewhere else other than in Joseph Smith's revelations in the 19th century?

Hi Everyone, As many of you know, I am not a Mormon and did grow up in an environment where Mormonism was popular or well-established. As such, there is much about Mormonism I do now know and I have been trying to learn as much as possible in recent weeks. Many of you have been a wonderful help and I hope that you could explain a perceived problem I have with the Book of Mormon that seems to show a contradiction between what the Book of Mormon says and what Joseph Smith later prophesized. In the Book of Mormon (Alma 11:44, Mosiah 15:5, 2 Nephi 31:21), it clearly says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is "one God." In all three of those occasions, there is no mention of a "Godhead" or three separate beings. Joseph Smith later, as you all know, taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were all separate beings. Can any of you explain this perceived contradiction?

Thank you for this. You laid out your case in a very logical, careful, and kind way. I greatly appreciate that! Coming from a Catholic background, I am can confidently say two things regarding the statements you just made: 1. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church has always taught some form of Theosis (or becoming like God or gods), although writers throughout time have had very different views within the fait. 2. The average Catholic on the street today has no idea that the Catholic Church has taught this view of man and the afterlife for centuries (and possible since the founding of the Church), which is why so many Christians today find it to be such an odd "crazy Mormon" thing to teach. In reality, as you already suggested, it's not so unique or crazy from a historical theological viewpoint.

You are absolutely correct. Either Smith was really quite an evil man who deliberately tricked millions of people (counting modern Mormons) into believing a total lie about God OR he was a prophet of God. That's it. There is no way he could have been confused or delusional or anything else...He either was a prophet, or he was a very, very bad person.

Great resources as well. Not sure I buy all of the arguments in them, but they are still great. I haven't finished the New World one yet but I hope to this week.

All of these prophecies are very interesting and I admit they could point to Smith, but it seems equally possible Smith wrote the things he did with those prophecies in mind. It's difficult to say, but I appreciate the great deal of evidence!

I totally agree with this.

First, your definition of eternal builds into it quite a bit of assumptions. First of all, you are assuming "eternal" means "lasting forever from this point forward." You could make the argument that you ARE eternal based on that understanding. However, my understanding of "eternal," which also appears in the dictionary, is everlasting, perpetually in existence...which essentially means ALWAYS in existence. Even if your belief about being conceived directly by God as a spirit is true, you are not eternal because you were definitely created at ONE point in time. That's why most things are seemingly eternal and only one thing...God...is actually eternal. Of course, my response builds in numerous assumptions of my own. Second, you are absolutely correct that NUMEROUS followers of Jesus Christ who believed Joseph Smith was a true prophet died for their beliefs. This is, in my opinion, evidence in favor of Mormonism! However, by itself, it doesn't prove anything. Coupled with other historical factors, it is quite powerful. Third, you are quite right that there are very few written historical records OUTSIDE of religious texts which talk about Jesus. However, we have access to VERY few written records from that period at all, especially secular written records, so it's very difficult to find the kind of information you are talking about here. Israel was a relatively unimportant part of the ancient world at the time of Christ and many of their records were likely destroyed over the years given the many wars that existed in that region (especially between Christians and Muslims later on). Fourth, your argument that no record of Jesus exists outside of religious texts is really a misleading point. Obviously all those who believed Jesus was God and wrote about Jesus wrote "religious" texts and all those who didn't believe in Jesus would not have cared who he was...he would just been another false Jewish prophet. There were several and Romans and secular authorities had no reason to remain interested in him after Jesus was dead. Neither did the non-believing Jewish authorities. Fifth, while you are right that outside of the Gospels there are no written records of Jesus, there are MANY written records by those who knew Apostles, and many of those early church fathers were murdered for their beliefs as well. I would say that's pretty good evidence Jesus actually existed and the Resurrection story reported by the Apostles, at the very least, came from the Apostles.

That's a very unique (at least in my studies so far) way of looking at Smith. It is true that God has often chosen people for leadership who may otherwise seem to be poor leaders (St. Peter for instance). Perhaps the reasons you cite are exactly why!

Well that answers the question! I haven't reached that part yet in my readings so I wasn't aware of it.

No, that's true I suppose.