[Some interesting doctrines of LDS]

Ok, we are going in two different directions.

Their can be only one priesthood. Because they both are different. The Aaronic is governed by the Law of Moses, which cannot give mercy,

and you have the Melkizedec that can give mercy. They both cannot co-exist because they are in two different covenants. Christ created a

new covenant which ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. The reason for this is that Christ's covenant over rode the old one.

Second if you were to have the Aaronic Priesthood you have to be the age of 25 and not only do you have to be a Levite, but you have

to prove it yourselves. You cannot just claim it. So if you were to do that, most of the LDS are not even qualified for it. So it wouldn't

even be an option. But that is not so, because the Aaronic Priesthood is gone.

Okay; you can't have it both ways. Either Christ was able to change/amend/update/override the old laws and old covenant, in which case he could certainly amend the requirements for the Aaronic priesthood, or he was not able to change anything, in which case he could not have created a new covenant and ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. So which is it? He can modify the law, or he can't? I think most of us here will agree that Christ has certainly shown himself capable of modifying the law and arranging HIS priesthood/s any way he wants to. Just saying the priesthoods were in two different covenants does not even remotely demonstrate that they cannot co-exist. Many things from the old covenant co-exist with the things in the new, without tearing the fabric of the space-time continuum. And even before Christ came, the two existed together, so why can they not now? Your argument makes no sense. If you can show logically (not just with opinion) why they cannot co-exist, and why they cannot be held by whomever Christ chooses to hold them, please explain it.

["Mark of Cain"]

Please help me understand something. I've been a member of the church for almost 8 years and my life has truly changed because of the gospel. I am the only member of my family. I am an African American woman and my parents are African American as well. My father doesn't understand why, as a child he couldn't join the LDS church because of his being African American. I am not sure what the exact specifics are. I am just wondering to help explain this to my father. Thanks...

Dee23 in WA

I would like to point out that it is not any kind of official Church doctrine that the "mark of Cain" was black skin. That is an old Protestant notion that has been around for centuries and unfortunately was also brought into the Church by many of the members; I cannot find the paper now (it may have been a FAIRwiki article) but I read something clearly demonstrating that the mark of Cain was a sign on the forehead, and had nothing to do with skin color.

Yes, there are instances in Scripture where people have their skins changed from light to dark, but the reason is explicitly stated as being to set them apart from another group, so that they would not intermarry. This may sound like racism in modern times, but up until fairly recently in human history people usually didn't marry outside their own ethnic group, for multiple reasons, including religion, culture-specific beauty standards, and even plain old xenophobia. So, of course, God accomplished his purposes.

ANYWAY, as the previous answer states, there has also never been a policy of denying membership to African-Americans, only up until the late 70s black men could not hold the priesthood.

Here is an excellent FAIRwiki article about the matter, containing numerous links to specific topics and questions.

EDIT: I found something along the lines of what I've read in this address given by Armand L. Mauss at the 2003 FAIR Conference:

""Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative.3 Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists. With allusions to the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, the scenario went something like this : In the pre-existence, certain of the spirits were set aside, in God’s wisdom, to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s fratricide and obeisance to Satan, and then again later by Ham’s lèse majesté against his father Noah. We aren’t exactly sure why this lineage was set apart in the pre-existence, but it was probably for reasons that do not reflect well on the premortal valiancy of the partakers of that lineage. Since the beginning, the holy priesthood has been withheld from all who have had any trace of that lineage, and so it shall be until all the rest of Adam’s descendants have received the priesthood, or, for all practical purposes, throughout the mortal existence of humankind.

"Neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot be so interpreted unless we start with the scenario itself and project it retrospectively upon the scriptural passages in proof-text fashion. For if we set aside the darkened glass of this contrived scenario, we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals.4 The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription.5 At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham’s son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed!6 There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It’s true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black,7 but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time.8 There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.

"Much of the conventional "explanation" for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nineteenth-century Europe and America, especially from the slavery justifications of the antebellum South.9 Understandable–even forgivable–as such a resort might have been for our LDS ancestors, it is neither understandable nor forgivable in the twenty-first century. It is an unnecessary burden of misplaced apologetics that has been imposed by our history upon the universal and global aspirations of the Church. Until we dispense with it once and for all, it will continue to encumber the efforts of today’s Church leaders and public affairs spokespersons to convince the world, and especially the black people of America, that the Church is for all God’s children, "black and white, bond and free, male and female."""

The rest of the article can be found here.

[Gospel Doctrine]

Thank you, rameumptom, that was a very helpful explanation. I appreciate it.

[Gospel Doctrine]

I love your question. you must be and arts major since I only dream about writing like you.

If you've seen General Conference, you've seen how the GA's and the Presidency "teach" us by unfolding the principles to us in the form of a talk. Anecdotes, historical accounts, quotes from previous prophets are all utilized to explain a certain principle. The doctrine is Christ's and they act as His mouthpiece for us. Specific revelation is offered/issued as an official declaration or manifest and you will see that only from time to time.

And you are right about learning from other sources. But that is not "doctrine" but knowledge/information/insight on a subject that indeed has value but should not be construed as revelation or Gospel principle.

Hmmm... I guess if I was any kind of major, it would probably be arts (does that include stuff like comparative religion, or is that considered something else?). But alas, to date I have not had the opportunity to attend any institute of higher learning. I am a stay-at-home mother who left school at 16 due to the unutterably horrible tedium of it all. :) Although my husband says I've definitely completed several degrees' worth of studies under my own steam, hehe. Too bad it doesn't count for anything in the "real world".

Thank you for your explanation.

And Moksha, thank you also for your comment; I have heard a similar perspective on a statement I believe was from President Hinckley about piercings and earrings, which everyone suddenly started taking as some kind of official position of the Church. :) I suppose, though, when one loves, respects and reveres the Prophet, it's natural to imbue even his most casual words with significance and give them a certain weight in one's life.

[Why so solemn during meetings?]

My child sits nice and quiet during Sacrament, if he needs to leave he asks quietly.

So does mine, most of the time. But I also understand that sometimes, when children are bored, tired, hungry, sick, or just excited and filled with youthful exuberance, it can be very difficult for them to control themselves.

It's got nothing to do with tolerance toward children. It's parents not teaching children respect for others and places. I find it sad that you think telling a child to be quiet is being "hostile" to the child.

What's not about tolerance toward children? If you mean your statements about church, then I did not intend that comment about society in general to apply to you and your personal expectations of children. However, I stand by my comment about society's intolerance towards children; I have seen and heard people complain about a child laughing loudly in a restaurant, or the mere presence of young children in certain public places where, presumably, those folks would rather forget about the existence of the young of their own species.

I do not think it hostile to tell a child to be quiet. I think teaching children to be quiet and respectful is certainly necessary and the duty of any conscientious parent. What I was talking about was the unrealistic expectation that children are somehow supposed to be silent and still all the time, or even most of the time. That is what I find hostile to the child, because it fails to take into account the basic nature of childhood.

Now I'm not talking about infants or toddler's. Yes, they're pretty much going to do what they're going to do. I'm talking about the older kids (5-9). I remember as a child being punished for talking loudly, and hardly any children ran up and down the isles. What happened?

In that age-range, I absolutely agree with you. I was referring to younger children throughout my post, not children old enough to understand the expectations placed on them in such situations. I don't see any reason why children over 4 should be running in the aisles or disrupting the meeting with loud noise. That would annoy me also.

[Gospel Doctrine]

Please do not be scare..LOL

I am also a convert and we have moved a couple of times in ten years. Every ward is different and instructors vary from ward to ward. Some have great (have acquired) skill in conducting the class/lesson some are not. Things can digress at times during a class but if there is leadership in the classroom it gets back on track rather easily.

The other issue is that this forum does not represent a true cross section of the LDS membership statistically or otherwise. Not to mention that unless you have been reading for a while you would not guess who is member and who is not. Opinions and interpretation may vary but you must be careful how you read teh forum. A,ways look for what the prophets have said on the subject.

Beyond that, we are all entitle to thoughts, ideas and interpretation of what a particular scripture says. However, the only binding authority when it comes to the Church are the General Authorities and the Presidency of the Church. You are free to go on a limb and interpret as you please. But it does not mean much if it is not online with what the bretheren revealed as to that particular scripture. It is personal revelation as long as it is not contrary to the truth and will already revealed by the Lord.

I join in a prior statement: some think they know. But they don't know that they actually don't know much." :)

Thanks; I certainly do focus on the actual teachings of the Church as opposed to anything else, although I also believe useful information can be garnered from sources such as FARMS and FAIR.

One question has occurred to me in response to your post: Is everything taught by the Presidency and Apostles authoritative and binding on the Church? I was under the impression that unless the teaching is specifically stated to be a revelation from God, then it is simply the words of the human man; and that therefore it is not necessarily an infallible statement of fact or truth, but rather the learned and perhaps inspired guidance of the man in question. Is this a mistaken view? Are all teachings and words spoken by the leaders to be considered official and binding on members as doctrine? Or only those declared to come directly from God?

[Gospel Doctrine]

Wow, reading these stories is kind of freaking me out. Part of me feels like maybe I should have visited different wards before jumping into the LDS waters... :)

In my ward, we discuss things and comment in a very free way. I, as a woman and a new convert, have never for a moment felt compunction about raising my hand to comment or speculate or ask a question. I guess I just assumed all wards were alike in that respect, and that Mormonism, with its wonderful emphasis on freedom and education and intelligence, would never be the kind of religion that discouraged or prevented the free exchange of ideas in the classroom setting. It sounds like I was wrong!!! I'm pretty worried, now... what if we move and end up in one of the suppressive wards? I won't last long in that kind of environment.

Also, not all new members need to be fed milk. Some, like myself, have studied Church doctrine long and hard before deciding to join; and personally I find the milk, while tasty, to be not really filling at this point. I am dying to sit down at the grown-ups' table and sink my teeth into some of that spiritual meat!!! Many of the members I've encountered seem flabbergasted that a new convert could have more knowledge of Church doctine than many long-time members. It seems that sometimes the leaders take rather a too-dim view of the intellectual capacity of members, whether new or otherwise, and unnecessarily restrict the range of the lessons based on that perceived "Joe Schmoe" mentality. If Gospel Doctrine classes aren't the place to take on Deep Doctrine and a limited amount of edifying speculation, then where is? Is there another class that delves deeper into these things later on? If not, why not? True, they may not be essential for salvation, but once you've got the essentials down, shouldn't there be room for learning more about the non-essentials? Otherwise what is to prevent well-educated and/or long-time members from eventually leaving the class out of boredom and lack of intellectual stimulation?

Elphaba, your Cambridge classes sound sooooo good!

[Concerned About Dna Evidence]

When discussing this it's important to remember that the ONLY modern DNA known to come from the Israelites is that of the Jews, who are the remains of the tribe of Judah (and probably Benjamin). There were eleven other tribes which have been scattered over the earth, and nobody knows who they are today. So to say that the Native Americans don't have any ISRAELITE DNA is not accurate at all; all we can say is that they don't share DNA with modern Jews. But then again, nor do any other people on the earth have Jewish DNA, except those who are descended from the tribe of Judah; and we KNOW that there are many more Israelites out there than the Jews! For all we know, the Turks could be the descendants of one tribe, the Chinese the descendants of another, the Germans the descendants of another... all the tribes would have developed distinct lines of DNA that would currently be impossible to relate to one another in any meaningful way. Just look at the various tribes that can be found in one area of Africa and the obvious differences and distinctions between them. They are all related somewhere far back in the mists of time, but now each tribe has its own physical characteristics, cultural traditions, standards of beauty, etc. It was similar among the Germanic and Celtic tribes of ancient Europe. The dynamics of the 12 tribes of Israel would be no different.

[Why so solemn during meetings?]

I can sort of relate to this as our ward is very noisy. We do have a lot of children in our ward and they contribute to the noise, but the parents don't quiet their kids. If a baby is crying, take it out into the hall. In our ward there are kids running up and down the isles with the parents sitting there doing nothing. I can be very distracting. I just try and concentrate on the speakers, and if I can't hear them, I pull out my lesson manual or scriptures and read them until I can hear them.

Trust me, the kids messing around being kids is much less distracting than the parents having to try and stop them every 2 minutes (quietly!), or physically restrain them, resulting in tantrums and upsets. Kids can't be forced to sit still and be silent, it just doesn't work!!! Parents get used to tuning out the noise while watching TV or movies, and maybe sometimes forget that childless people haven't had that practice. But the child-friendly nature of LDS meetings is one of the things I so love about the Church, especially since most of the mainstream world has gotten downright hostile towards children. I guess that's what happens when people have fewer and fewer kids, society doesn't know what they're like and loses all tolerance for normal childlike behavior; but the Church still maintains that laid-back, child-friendly environment typical of healthy, family-oriented cultures.

Back to the original question on this thread, yes, I have noticed that often people are just chatting during talks and don't seem to be truly engaged in the Spirit or taking the messages to heart. It is a bit discouraging sometimes. And although there are usually a couple of people who will get up and cry while speaking, for the most part there is not much emotion displayed. The prevailing mood seems to be one of tearful thanks rather than rapturous joy (not that there's anything wrong with tearful thanks, but I think there should be some kind of balance!).

Generally, though, I find the atmosphere of the meetings one of warmth, gratitude and deep peace. Perhaps it is this inner peacefulness that comes across as somber or solemn to some folks.

[Trinity Vs. Godhead]

i don't understand everything about the trinity. neither do i understand everything concerning an eternal regression and eternal progression of Gods. when i read the scriptures, i take what God says at face value. i don't think he would say one thing and mean another. God says there is only one God and he knows not any other. that supports the idea of the trinity. father, son, holy spirit are one God. godhead is the belief in many Gods. Trinity = 1 God. Godhead = 3 Gods. in the bible and book of mormon, do you ever read God teaching that there is more than one God?

The term "God" in the scriptures, just like the term "Lord" and the name "Jehovah", is used interchangeably to refer to the individual members of the Godhead but also to the Godhead as a whole. So one has to look at the context of each usage to understand who exactly is being referred to in any given instance. Clearly, since we know that there exist the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, as beings who are aware of each other and speak to and of each other, then any passage speaking of the oneness of God must be referring to the Godhead as a whole, not to one member of the Godhead.

I look at it kind of like how the media refer to the actions of a President or Government as the actions of the country they represent, i.e. "Today France ratified the treaty." Obviously this does not mean that either the landmass of France ratified a treaty or that every individual in France ratified a treaty; it means the President of France ratified the treaty.

One can actually see a similar usage of "God" in many ancient religions, where it can mean either a specific God or a collective Godhead. It is used this way in Hinduism, for example; it was also used this way by the Celtic Druids. Nothing new, really.

[Doctrine regaurding evolution?]

From what I've gathered so far, there are some in the church who are creationists and some who are not. Is there any official church position on the matter? It seems that if the theory of evolution were true, it would conflict with the Old Testament which is still part of the LDS belief system, is it not?

I don't believe the Church has an official position on evolution, but I personally don't see it conflicting with the Genesis creation account at all. The Biblical account is somewhat incomplete; the version recorded by Joseph Smith in the Pearl of Great Price (and maybe this is also mentioned in the D&C) teaches that there was a spiritual creation before there was a physical creation; a kind of spiritual blueprint, if you will, for physical matter to follow as it developed into its final form. The six-day creation was the spiritual creation, after which God rested and allowed things to take their prescribed course. To me, the statement that God "formed Adam from the dust of the earth" is a clear reference to the evolution of our physical bodies from the primordial mud. The additional story about Eve being taken from Adam's side also seems to be a clear reference to the change from a single-sex self-replicating organism to a reproductive two-sex one. It doesn't make sense any other way. When the "tabernacles of clay" were finally fit to inhabit (i.e. properly reflected the image of God), Adam and Eve entered those first proper human bodies, and the rest is history. :)

[Some interesting doctrines of LDS]

There are some doctrines I am curious about.Garden of Eden be located in Independence,Missouri-Joesph Smith vison??? Second coming of christ,Jesus will come to mIssouri-USA first??? Biblical scholars claim Garden of eden is in Middle East-Iraq or somewhere.

Biblical scholars have no idea where the Garden of Eden was; there is no way to determine that from what is recorded in the Bible. Biblical scholars say it was in the Middle East because of two flawed assumptions: first, that the rivers mentioned to flow from the Garden were the same as those known by those names after the Flood (which obviously must have drastically changed the landscape); and second, that people in ancient times were somehow too stupid or too apathetic to travel great distances to far-off lands (despite the continuous discovery of evidence that shows they did just that, and far more often than anyone would have believed).

God has a wife in heaven.God is flesh and bones with wife,makes spirit children.

This is something I've wondered about myself. If Heavenly Father and his wife are both beings of glorified flesh and bones, then how is it they produce spirit children rather than children of flesh and bones like themselves? The only answer to this puzzle seems to be that our natural progression is somewhat like the life-cycle of an insect!! We have a "larval stage" as spirit children, then "cocoon" ourselves in our earthly form, then (after a brief return to spirit) we finally emerge from our metamorphosis as glorified beings like our Heavenly Parents. Of course, this is just a simple way of looking at it from our current limited perspective... actually, Doctrine and Covenants teaches that matter and spirit are just two forms of the same all-pervading substance, just functioning at different levels of refinement, or different speeds of "vibration", to use the terminology of modern quantum physics.

Why does Book of Mormon say that God is a spirit not flesh and bones?? In Doctrines and Covenants say that God is flesh and bones.

When discussing the issue of God as Spirit vs. flesh and bones, one has to keep in mind the timeline of scriptural events. Remember that for most of the Old Testament period, the majority of Hebrews/Jews did not have a complete understanding of the Father and the Son; to them, they had one God and that was Jehovah (whom we know as the pre-mortal Christ). Since Christ had not yet incarnated, he was of course a spirit being for the whole of the Old Testament period. At that time he did NOT have a body of flesh and bones. So when they said that God was a Spirit, they were absolutely correct, as far as they understood it. Remember also that the word "God" is used throughout scripture to refer to the Godhead as a whole and also to any individual member of the Godhead. So even today one could say, "God is (a) Spirit" and be absolutely correct, if referring to the Holy Ghost. But, as we know, God is also a tangible being of flesh and bones (in fact TWO tangible beings of flesh and bones!), so that statement only tells part of the whole truth.