Hahahaha (call To The First Presidency)

[Guest bat]

Upon stumbiling across this apologetic website tonight, I was prompted to call the First Presidency and ask this question:

"Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints EVER teach that black people were cursed and the descendants of Cain?"

The person who answered the phone said: "Ummmmmmmmmm, I don't think so."

To which I replied "You don't think so?"

Her response was: "Actually, we're not allowed to give out that information, in case we give out false information."

My next question was "Well is there anyone there that would know?"

"Yes, you can call back tomorrow and ask for the historical department." she said.

I asked "At this same number?"

She told me "yes".

I was taught this in church. I'm shocked that I have to check with the historical department to see whether or not what I was taught in the LDS church was ever taught by the LDS church.

Does the concern over political correctness of the church vs. teachings of the prophets and church leaders bother anybody else? I mean, not that I really care since I'm not a believing mormon anymore, but if I were, this would probably seriously bother me.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by bat@Jul 29 2004, 11:24 PM

I was taught this in church. I'm shocked that I have to check with the historical department to see whether or not what I was taught in the LDS church was ever taught by the LDS church.

The LDS church has definitely evolved in these almost 175 years, and it will keep evolving. I'm pretty sure in 50 years it will a very different church than it is now - in beliefs and culture.

M.

I agree Maureen.....

Bat, I think its called progression

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin progressus advance, from progredi to go forth, from pro- forward + gradi to go -- more at PRO-, GRADE

3 : gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of mankind

- in progress : going on : OCCURRING B)

LaurelTree

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jul 30 2004, 08:50 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-bat@Jul 29 2004, 11:24 PM

I was taught this in church. I'm shocked that I have to check with the historical department to see whether or not what I was taught in the LDS church was ever taught by the LDS church.

The LDS church has definitely evolved in these almost 175 years, and it will keep evolving. I'm pretty sure in 50 years it will a very different church than it is now - in beliefs and culture.

M.

I wonder if the church will ever be restored to the way Joseph Smith had it set up. Restore the restored gospel, or whatever.

[Mark]

Hi Bat,

Ask for your answer in writting. And while your at it ask why they can have caffine now, my son asked a missionary last nigt about caffine and they told him they can drink it now as long as they don't get addicted. I might have to sue the church for mental issues from the beating I use to take as a kid from my non-LDS buddys for dogging me for always drinking rootbeer and not being able to drink a coke when we went to the market after school, thank God it wasn't against the word of wisdom to buy baseball cards.

Mark

John 1:12

[Faerie]

I was never taught that I couldn't have caffeine :) I grew up drinking Mtn. Dew and Dr. Pepper...my parents always taught that it was fine as long as I didn't get addicted...:)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by bat+Jul 30 2004, 09:13 PM-->

Originally posted by Maureen@Jul 30 2004, 08:50 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-bat@Jul 29 2004, 11:24 PM

I was taught this in church. I'm shocked that I have to check with the historical department to see whether or not what I was taught in the LDS church was ever taught by the LDS church.

The LDS church has definitely evolved in these almost 175 years, and it will keep evolving. I'm pretty sure in 50 years it will a very different church than it is now - in beliefs and culture.

M.

I wonder if the church will ever be restored to the way Joseph Smith had it set up. Restore the restored gospel, or whatever.

That is what the RLDS church was when it was reorganized in 1860.

[annelizayoung]

This thread is very disturbing to me. Jenda, as a restorationist (I think that is the right term), does your group teach that blacks are cursed? I think the LDS changed this much later than 1860 (when the RLDS was formed).

So did your group:

[1] Change it too? If so, when and how.

[2] Never hold it? If so isn't it in the Book of Mormon somewhere.

[3] Still hold it? If so, I am disinclined to explore the RLDS further.

I am confused, can you please help?

AEY

[Guest bat]

Wasn't the teaching that blacks are cursed primarily a teaching of Brigham Young, and not so much that of Joseph Smith, therefore the RLDS or CoC or whatever wouldn't have held that belief.

Here is what the official position of the LDS church was half a century ago (some of us on this board were even alive back then.)

In 1949 the LDS Church First Presidency issued an official statement on priesthood denial to blacks:

The attitude of the church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time (As quoted in Black Saints in a White Church, by Jessie L. Embry, p. 24, Signature Books, 1994).

[Jenda]

The RLDS have never held that belief. In fact, Joseph Smith, Jr., ordained blacks in the early church. As a World Church, we have had apostles from Japan, New Zealand, Africa, England and even Canada.

In fact, at the present, there is nobody in the first presidency that is American. (Of course, the first presidency that I recognize does have Americans in it because I still believe that Wallace B. Smith is prophet of the church.)

As a restorationist (and an RLDS), to be honest, I don't believe that we have ever assigned remnants of a curse to any ethnic group. We do not have the same beliefs in the pre-life that the LDS do. I believe that those beliefs come from the PoGP (which we have never viewed as scripture.)

[annelizayoung]

Jenda,

Is 2 Nephi 5:21 a part of the RLDS version of the Book of Mormon? If so, how do you deal with that? I had to hunt a bit to find that verse that I had remembered seeing.

Hope my question doesn't offend. And I realize it is a question especially for the LDS since their version does include it.

Speaking of pre-life. That's another topic I'd like to explore, but will put it on the back burner for a while.

Peace,

AEY

[Jenda]

Yes, that verse is in our BoM. Since we never held the belief that blacks were not eligible to hold the priesthood, we never concentrated on that verse, though the acknowledgment that God caused that curse has been there. I have always believed it to mean the natural darkness that comes from constant exposure to the sun.

My belief is that the Nephites chose to live in houses and cities as civilized people while the Lamanites chose to live as heathens (aborigines, if you will.) It would be the same kind of difference, IMO as the difference between those Jews that have emigrated to America and live in luxurious surroundings (as you will) compared to the Jews that still live in the middle east, where they are not as blessed as we are. You can tell from comparing those two (related) groups that they are accustomed to different surroundings. The American Jews are fair-skinned, the middle-eastern Jews are very olive-complected. That is how I have always viewed the difference.

[Mark]

Hi Jenda,

Do you believe that Gordon Hinkley is a false Prophet?

Mark

John 1:12

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bat+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bat)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Does the concern over political correctness of the church vs. teachings of the prophets and church leaders bother anybody else?

*Raises hand*

<!--QuoteBegin--Mark

Hi Jenda,

Do you believe that Gordon Hinkley is a false Prophet?I really want to answer that, but I'll just leave the obvious answer to Jenda.

[Jenda]

The short answer would be, Yes.

The longer answer would be that I consider many of the men to whom religious institutions are entrusted are men of God, but they are not "prophets" in the sense I considered Joseph Smith, Jr., a prophet. I don't even believe that there is a prophet leading my church at present. He has stepped aside and another is president of the church. Hopefully, one day, he will see the error of his ways and again place himself in the position that God has called him. (I am speaking of Wallace B. Smith, great-grandson of Joseph, Jr.)

[Mark]

Hi Jenda,

Then is it fair to say that the LDS church is led by men that, for what ever reason, are deceiving their people ( COJCOLDS ). This would mean that Hinkley and the 14 men under him are false apostles.

Do you believe that they should be exposed as such as the Bible demands ( 2 Cor. 11 etc )?

Mark

john 1;12

[Jenda]

I believe that the longer answer in my answer would be an appropriate answer to this question.

I will re-iterate. I do not believe that they are prophets in the same sense that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but, in the sense that they allow themselves to be used by God to direct their religious institutions, their ministry can be inspired, or God-led, and therefore would not fall into the category that 2 Cor. 11 espouses.

Let me go on to say that I believe that we all worship the same God, and this is a scripture that embraces the thought I believe to be true.

Luke 9:49-50 (as well as Mark 9:38-39)

49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that is not against us is for us.

[Guest bat]

I feel like my thread has been hijacked.

[Mark]

Hi Jenda,

The God I worship has always been God, the god the LDS worship was once a sinful man, theres a big difference there. I do not worship the same God as your teachings define, nor do I worship the god of Joseph Smith, you should assume that we believe the same, because we don't. I believe that I can get to the presence of the Father because He loves me enough to forgive my sinful nature, LDS teachings teach that they have to work and prove themselves and then maybe? the Father will allow them in His Presence, big difference there.

What do you do with verses in the bibles that teach that deceivers will come out of the church leading people astray to worship false gods. Thats why they are called sheeps in wolves clothing, that is what Paul in warning against ANOTHER JESUS and ANOTHER GOSPEL. If I am incorrect here, who is the other Jesus that Paul warns us against and what is the other gospel that he warns us against?

If you claim to be a Prophet of God and you are not, then that makes one a FALSE prophet, not a almost prophet or a sometimes prophet, you either are or you are not.

Any way let me know who from inside the Church is teaching another Jesus as Paul warns?

mark

Johyn 1:12

[Jenda]

Mark, which church are you talking about? I am not LDS, so I can't tell you the answer to your question.

[Guest]

Jenda, I believe that Mark is indeed referring to you here. Since your church bases it's understanding of the Bible on Joseph Smith(or the subsequent prophets), then these prophets must be examined. Since I agree with Mark that Joseph Smith was very much a false prophet, then that makes the CoC/RLDS church a church which in highly influenced by a false prophet and which takes it's interpretation of the Bible by a false prophet. I cannot say that each individual member of your church or of the LDS church is not saved by the grace of Jesus, but I can say that any member of a church which is under such an influence by a false prophet is in a very dangerous position. I'm sure you agree with me that no man is infallible and that everyone should read and re-read the Bible in order to really understand for themselves just who Jesus is and what He has done.

[Jenda]

Well, he can't be pointing too pointed a finger at me because my church has never believed in the Adam-God/exhaltation doctrine.

Just because you (and he) believes that Joseph Smith was a false prophet doesn't make it so. Too much real stuff has come from (or through) him for it to be coincidence. If you are calling someone a false prophet because some of the teachings are false, or because he fell from his calling (as I believe), I believe that to be wrong assumption, and you can check out several of the OT prophets track record to compare them. Are you going to call Jonah a false prophet because he didn't follow the instructions God gave him, and wanted destruction to come down on a people that God saved? How about Moses? He must not be a prophet because he killed quite a few people.

You can't have it both ways.

To be honest, I think that a lot of people put waaaaay too much thought and effort into something that doesn't need to be so heavily emphasized. Yes, it might be fun to discuss them (at times, when people aren't bashing each other over the head insisting that they are the only ones who have an insight into God), but I lean more to the opinion that God probably doesn't care as much what we believe about Him, as long as we believe in Him as our Lord and accept Christ as our Savior. Because we are only given very ambiguous clues as to His/Their nature, there is no way to tell till the final judgment what their nature really is, and those who have really given their life to Him will recognize Him and recognize their error and change their belief and God will forgive them. Those that don't, well, they never knew Him.

[Guest bat]

.............

[Jenda]

So does your church teach that the King Follet Sermon was fabricated by Brigham Young, like Joseph Smith's polygamy was?

No.

[Guest bat]

My bad, I had my doctrines confused for a second. Ignore the question.

[Guest]

Jenda, I call Joseph Smith a false prophet because he taught things which were contrary to the Bible. I don't believe for a second that those angels that he saw were God or God's angels. He may have seem sort of beings, but they weren't of God.

"Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, page 474).

I don't care if this is not 'official doctrine' for anyone. It is only one example of many. Joseph Smith believed that there were gods above God and that is contrary to the Bible. Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

I pretty much agree with your last paragraph.