I'm a confused investigator

[Tyler90AZ]

Regarding blacks and the priesthood. Cooling, please listen to me on this. Most of the members of the Church do not understand why blacks were not promised the priesthood. It is so simple and easy to understand but when I explain it they never ever understand it.

So Noah has 3 sons. Shem, Ham and Japeth. We know that Ham's lineage carried the Negro race. When Ham uncovers his father's nakedness in the Bible he is cursed to become the servant of man. Listen, this is so easy to see! Abraham comes from Shem's seed and Abraham is the father of the priesthood. Abraham has Issac and Issac has Jacob. Jacob's name is changed to Israel and this is where we get the tribes of Israel.

Ham's seed was never promised any priesthood blessings. The Bible is full of instances where one people or another are promised blessings that are not extended to all. Ham's seed and Japeth's seed were not included in this. God extended His love and mercy to Ham's seed eventually. It was not a "if you are dark you don't receive the priesthood" but it extended itself even into South American countries.

Do not let this trouble you. The priesthood blessings belonged to Abraham's seed. Ham's and Japeth's seed were not promised these blessing and now are.

It's so simple? I was told that when I first joined the church and over looked it. I was seeing what I wanted to see. Can't imagine being black and hearing that. Seems like crap to further justify racism by BY.

Anyone willing to elaborate on that for me?

Edited August 6, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[skippy740]

I can't elaborate on that because I don't believe in that original premise for Blacks and the Priesthood for the latter days.

If the priesthood was to have a restriction on it, it would have been revealed to the Prophet Joseph and more than likely written and recorded in the Doctrine & Covenants.

[cooling]

Hey, I know this thread is old now but I was lurking around the board and realized I never thanked everyone for trying their best to answer my questions. I appreciate that you guys took the time to explain your own views on the topics to me. I guess there's a lot that isn't doctrinal, but I think the one that kept bugging me was that I have a copy of Mormon Doctrine which was written by a prophet. Since it was published as doctrine by a prophet I had always assumed that it was considered doctrinal. Most of it doesn't apply anymore though, and not just things that were changed by continuing revelations. That mark of cain no blacks in the priesthood thing is very clearly stated several times in the book, but now everyone says it was never doctrine. It's really really confusing.

[HiJolly]

Hey, I know this thread is old now but I was lurking around the board and realized I never thanked everyone for trying their best to answer my questions. I appreciate that you guys took the time to explain your own views on the topics to me. I guess there's a lot that isn't doctrinal, but I think the one that kept bugging me was that I have a copy of Mormon Doctrine which was written by a prophet. Since it was published as doctrine by a prophet I had always assumed that it was considered doctrinal. Most of it doesn't apply anymore though, and not just things that were changed by continuing revelations. That mark of cain no blacks in the priesthood thing is very clearly stated several times in the book, but now everyone says it was never doctrine. It's really really confusing.

For more detail information on the book Mormon Doctrine, I suggest reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory A Prince, Wm Robert Wright and here's why:

Bruce McConkie (the author of Mormon Doctrine) was a member of the First council of Seventy, and not *the* prophet when he published the book. He published it without authorization from the Church and without authorization from the Prophet at the time, who was David O. McKay.

President McKay had some Apostles(one was Marion G. Romney) investigate the book, and they found over 1,000 questionable or flat-out incorrect statements in the book. He then told Elder McConkie that he was never to publish the book again, even if he removed the problems. Of course, Elder McConkie agreed -- but years later when President McKay was in ill health and about to pass away, he reversed himself and published a revised, modified edition of the book, which continued for decades. Thank God Deseret book is no longer publishing it, at long last!

President McKay personally went to the Bishop of the Catholic Church in Salt Lake City and apologized for Elder McConkie's book. He almost denounced the book in public and had it removed from publication, but he didn't want to shame the McConkie and Smith families and discredit them in public, as he knew it would weaken the Church in the minds of the public had he done so.

Simply put, Mormon Doctrine is NOT Mormon doctrine in any way, shape or form.

HiJolly

Edited September 7, 2011 by HiJolly
clarification

[Guest mormonmusic]

Well, even the official doctrine in the scriptures gets defined and redefined in practice, so I think you simply have to look at the whole doctrinal thing broadly -- not on what is official, but on what will be expected or encouraged in your behavior when you join.

For example, tithing is in the scriptures. I've read that it's been defined and redefined as 10% of you surplus, 10% of your assets upon joining, and then 10% of your surplus afterwards, and then there was a period of confusion when finally the First Presidency said it's 10% of your income in the 1970's. Some have defined that to mean 10% of gross, others 10% of net income -- that is largely the standard held out for members today, and what you'll be asked to live.

You are right, I have heard "As Man is God once was, as God is, man may become" -- a quote from an early prophet in Sunday lessons and such. I think it's even in Gospel principles, the current manual. But then, higher ranking LDS leaders have downplayed that idea. But ultimately, that is what the majority of the membership believes, and is the prevailing belief --that eternal progression leads to us doing the same kinds of things that God himself does as we grow in knowledge. I think the membership at large and the general authorities believe that.

And, take home teaching -- that program is referred to in the scriptures and says it means the priesthood has to "visit the home of every member". But then the new Church Handbook of instructions has loosened that to mean a contact of some kind.

For me, the distinction between actual doctrine, and policy, and opinion is not important anymore. It's what the prevailing thought is in our culture and that matters -- as well as what you will be expected to do as a member of the Church. Does your depth of belief inspire you to live those things, and to accept those parts that don't make full sense yet? Those are the important questions.

[HiJolly]

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

This is the official statement from the Church concerning how we should approach an understanding of what is Doctrine in the Church.

HiJolly

[cooling]

I had no idea that Mormon Doctrine was so dismissed by the church. I heard that it was no longer published (the copy I have is super old) and that there are some things in there that had to be changed a few times, but I wasn't aware that it had been basically recalled. That's crazy.

Okay, so even though he was a prophet and the church accepts official proclamations from the prophets to be doctrine (allowing for continuing revelation, of course) nothing he said before he officially took the role of prophet counts as doctrine? I'm just trying to clarify. What's the process for a member of the first presidency to become a prophet? If I remember right there's an order already laid out for who is next in line, so if Monson were to pass there would be a new prophet already determined, correct? So do these guys go through any special training or anointing or anything to become the living prophet? When I read about the beginnings of the religion (like the first 50 years or so) there were prophecies all over the place and revelation all the time. I can't really find any examples of revelation since the blacks in the priesthood thing back in the 70's. Is this because the living prophet no longer speaks directly for God? Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there was now a process wherein the entire first presidency had to mull over and approve of any revelation before it was made official. Am I misunderstanding what that means? Wouldn't any revelation direct from God to his chosen prophet just be official?

Sorry, I know I'm being a pain in the butt. There's just so much that I don't understand.

[Blackmarch]

I had no idea that Mormon Doctrine was so dismissed by the church. I heard that it was no longer published (the copy I have is super old) and that there are some things in there that had to be changed a few times, but I wasn't aware that it had been basically recalled. That's crazy.

Okay, so even though he was a prophet and the church accepts official proclamations from the prophets to be doctrine (allowing for continuing revelation, of course) nothing he said before he officially took the role of prophet counts as doctrine? I'm just trying to clarify. What's the process for a member of the first presidency to become a prophet? If I remember right there's an order already laid out for who is next in line, so if Monson were to pass there would be a new prophet already determined, correct? So do these guys go through any special training or anointing or anything to become the living prophet? When I read about the beginnings of the religion (like the first 50 years or so) there were prophecies all over the place and revelation all the time. I can't really find any examples of revelation since the blacks in the priesthood thing back in the 70's. Is this because the living prophet no longer speaks directly for God? Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there was now a process wherein the entire first presidency had to mull over and approve of any revelation before it was made official. Am I misunderstanding what that means? Wouldn't any revelation direct from God to his chosen prophet just be official?

Sorry, I know I'm being a pain in the butt. There's just so much that I don't understand.

It's dismissed as being Gods word, which it isn't... but it is an individuals understanding of the church and doctrine, an individual who knew a lot of things but people seem to forget that "Mormon Doctrine" comes from what he understands (which comes from a conglomeration of inspiration, experience, and reason) more than anything else. if an individual reads it with that understanding its a pretty incredible book, but one that you have to take a grain of salt with.

Its far too often we have critics that try to make it out as scripture when it isn't.

[cooling]

Okay, that makes sense. A lot more sense than anything I've been able to find online. Because there were parts of that book that were great and others that just confused me terribly, but overall it was one of my favorite books that I've read while investigating. I like the way he explained things. Nothing against the Book of Mormon... I've read it and studied it and looked up official church explanations of the stuff that confused me, but overall I found the book really tough to read. That's not saying anything against the content, but the way it's written was hard for me to get into. I checked online and the phrase "It came to pass" occurs 1,381 in the Book of Mormon. It was worth the read, but I don't think I'd want to do it cover to cover again. I did find Doctrines and Covenants and PoGP far more interesting, but I'm glad there are books like Mormon Doctrine that present the faith in a concise, easier to digest form.

[JudoMinja]

Per your most recent question-

The prophet is chosen by God through revelation to the current apostles. For the most part, this has followed a direct succession: When the current prophet dies, the next one ends up being his first counselor. This is not always the case though, and was not how Brigham Young succeeded Joseph Smith after his death. There is a great ensign article that covers this topic in detail, which you can read here.

Most importantly, God's house is a house of order and not confusion. There is only one prophet at a time. Only one leader to the church. He is the one who receives direct revelation from God and can give prophetic accounts. The twelve apostles hold all the same keys as the prophet, but do not have the same role. They are his counsel, and they play a much greater role in that now than they did in the past. They often deliberate together in prayer over matters of revelation. This is an attempt to be sure that any new "doctrine" is really from God.

After the revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males, we have taken up two more proclamations that could be considered doctrine. These are "The Living Christ" and "The Family". Anything else spoken or written by the prophet or the apostles is not necessarily binding, but is generally good advice and insight.

[Spartan117]

Okay, so even though he was a prophet and the church accepts official proclamations from the prophets to be doctrine (allowing for continuing revelation, of course) nothing he said before he officially took the role of prophet counts as doctrine? I'm just trying to clarify. What's the process for a member of the first presidency to become a prophet? If I remember right there's an order already laid out for who is next in line, so if Monson were to pass there would be a new prophet already determined, correct? So do these guys go through any special training or anointing or anything to become the living prophet? When I read about the beginnings of the religion (like the first 50 years or so) there were prophecies all over the place and revelation all the time. I can't really find any examples of revelation since the blacks in the priesthood thing back in the 70's. Is this because the living prophet no longer speaks directly for God? Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there was now a process wherein the entire first presidency had to mull over and approve of any revelation before it was made official. Am I misunderstanding what that means? Wouldn't any revelation direct from God to his chosen prophet just be official?

Sorry, I know I'm being a pain in the butt. There's just so much that I don't understand.

Joseph Smith said that 'a prophet, is only a prophet, when he's a prophet." General Authorities are prophets, seers, and revelators. They are also regular people. They can receive revelation for something. And another Apostle can receive revelation as well for the same something. That does not mean they received the same revelation or information. Example ...

You have an apostle who makes a statement about something doctrinal, but what he says isn't in the scriptures as he said it. You have another apostle who says something completely opposite of what the other one said, that also is not outlined in the scriptures. Are they liars? Is the church a fraud? Not even close.

Based on their own knowledge, their own experiences, their own personal interpretation of scriptures, you get a knowledgeable opinion on the matter. When you mix all those things in with revelation he received as an apostle, a prophet a seer, very often they connect the dots with their own understanding of things and come out with an opinion on the matter again, but it's not revelation. At it's best, it's prophetic commentary.

The process for revelation to the prophet that is to be canonized and added to the standard works is waaay different. Just because we haven't added sections to D&C in a bit doesn't mean revelation has stopped. FAR from it. It means that the Lord has revealed all we need to have and know, we have holy writings, but for right now, we have sufficient for our needs.

The gold plates were sealed. There is more to come. There are books of scripture talked about all through out the standard works that aren't available right now. They will be. But let me ask you this, have you read the quad cover to cover and understand everything in there? How many people do you think really have? We aren't at a place where we need new scripture, we're at a place where we need to learn all of the light and knowledge that has been revealed to us.

Joseph and Hyrum Smith were brutally murdered while locked up in jail on false charges. IN JAIL, where a mob of 200 men ended the Prophet's mortal probation, his brothers as well. They were unjustly and savagely murdered and their families left without a patriarch, and the church left without a leader for a time. They sealed their testimony with their blood to bring us the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price. This happened kinda recently on a Biblical timeline. There are deathmasks of the actual faces of the Smith brothers you can see. You can go to their graves, you can go to the exact spot of the first vision and you can go to where those men were murdered. We don't fully know and understand the revelation we have (as a whole church, IMHO) and we are probably a little ways out from getting new scripture. And I think how much time depends entirely on us.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Spartan117

[cooling]

Joseph and Hyrum Smith were brutally murdered while locked up in jail on false charges

Correct me if I'm wrong here... I'm an independent investigator so I get my information on church history from numerous sources, but didn't Joseph Smith turn himself in on charges that he order the destruction of a newspaper press that printed an unfavorable story about him? I'm not saying he was guilty or anything (he never even got to stand trial) but based on all the local history and reports there was good reason to believe he might have been involved. Once again, not claiming he was guilty, but turning yourself in to be held until you stand trial for a crime in which there enough evidence to warrant a trial isn't the same as being locked up on false charges.

Do you know a different version of the events than I do? Obviously I'm not arguing that an angry mob murdered the brothers and that it was a tragedy and that even if they were actually guilty they wouldn't have deserved death sentences, but to say they were falsely imprisoned is a bit of a stretch. Whether or not he was a prophet of God, no one is going to deny that Joseph Smith was a man with human flaws like everyone else. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that he might have ordered the destruction of that press because one of his human flaws was arrogance or a need for revenge. That doesn't make his teachings any more or less true and certainly doesn't make his death at the hands of an angry mob any less tragic. I'm just trying to keep events in perspective based on a lot of research.

[cooling]

And yes, I have read the quad cover to cover. Like I stated earlier, the actual Book of Mormon is a tough read (as are parts of the bible) but I have studied the scriptures pretty thoroughly. I guess I want to see revelation and doctrine on those hazy issues where I would expect a prophet to be able to get clarity from God. Can we become gods? Do we get our own planets if we're exalted? What's the deal with plural marriage in the CK? What happens to my family after we die if we're not sealed together? What is his will regarding faithful members who are unequevically homosexual and incapable of opposite sex attraction? Why couldn't blacks have the priesthood? Why does the temperature of our beverages have any effect on our immortal souls?f

I know that the stock answer to most of this stuff is that "It's not for us to know" but then what's the point of having a direct line to God? I apologize if this sounds combative or like I'm challenging or attacking your faith in any way. I guess I get frustrated when I find so much that no one can explain to me. And I feel like God should be talking to his prophet to clear up the confusions on the doctrine. I don't know how anyone can be expected to follow covenants when so many of those covenants are purposely vague and confusing.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .President McKay personally went to the Bishop of the Catholic Church in Salt Lake City and apologized for Elder McConkie's book. He almost denounced the book in public and had it removed from publication, but he didn't want to shame the McConkie and Smith families and discredit them in public, as he knew it would weaken the Church in the minds of the public had he done so.

Simply put, Mormon Doctrine is NOT Mormon doctrine in any way, shape or form.

HiJolly

I do find it interesting that we have to apologize to the Catholic Church when they seem to feel there is no need to apologize to us for the swipes against us in their own encyclopedia on our prophet and the Book of Mormon etc. . .

Yet, I really see no need for us to. . .

[JudoMinja]

I know that the stock answer to most of this stuff is that "It's not for us to know" but then what's the point of having a direct line to God? I apologize if this sounds combative or like I'm challenging or attacking your faith in any way. I guess I get frustrated when I find so much that no one can explain to me. And I feel like God should be talking to his prophet to clear up the confusions on the doctrine. I don't know how anyone can be expected to follow covenants when so many of those covenants are purposely vague and confusing.

I want to address this issue instead of answering all your questions, since this seems to be your core problem. You're pretty good at studying and finding your answers, and I'm sure you've found just about everything you're going to find on all those individual questions. This though... "What's the point of having a direct line to God?" If you can address this, I think all your other questions won't bother you so much any more.

If you take a moment to look at your scriptures and dig up all the references to prophets, you will find quite a bit. You will also find that not one of those prophets made it a point to "clear up the confusions". In fact, there are a number of scriptures which state- "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear". This basically means that God is going to give us His word in a way that isn't always going to be clear. He isn't going to make it a point to clarify it for us. Instead, He will open up the way to personal revelation to those who seek Him earnestly and "have ears to hear". But He will not make everything clear and obvious for everyone.

He speaks in parables so that everyone can learn something- there are simple lessons for those who need the simplicity, and more complicated, complex, and even personal lessons for those who want to seek out more. For some, these parables are very confusing and hard to understand, and for the wicked they are even "hard". There are some instances where parables were explained to us, but these instances are rare. Christ explained a few to His apostles, Nephi explained his father's dream to his brothers, and a few more...

A prophet is not here to "make things clear". He is here to give us God's word for our time. To guide us in our own personal journies of reflection and revelation. To warn us of dangers. To call us to repentance. If you look for every single example of a prophet in the scriptures, you will find that each had some purpose or message they had to deliver. They did not always reveal everything... In fact, there were many times where they said the Spirit would constrain them not to speak or to write, as the people were not ready for the words.

While many things are going to be vague and confusing, the basics of our covenants are not. We promise what we will do, and God promises to bless us in return. As long as we live up to those basic promises, the details will all fall into place. If we had all the answers, we wouldn't need to be here. We wouldn't need to have faith. The gospel is here to help us journey and progress, not to give us all the answers.

[Spartan117]

Correct me if I'm wrong here... I'm an independent investigator so I get my information on church history from numerous sources, but didn't Joseph Smith turn himself in on charges that he order the destruction of a newspaper press that printed an unfavorable story about him? I'm not saying he was guilty or anything (he never even got to stand trial) but based on all the local history and reports there was good reason to believe he might have been involved. Once again, not claiming he was guilty, but turning yourself in to be held until you stand trial for a crime in which there enough evidence to warrant a trial isn't the same as being locked up on false charges.

Do you know a different version of the events than I do? Obviously I'm not arguing that an angry mob murdered the brothers and that it was a tragedy and that even if they were actually guilty they wouldn't have deserved death sentences, but to say they were falsely imprisoned is a bit of a stretch. Whether or not he was a prophet of God, no one is going to deny that Joseph Smith was a man with human flaws like everyone else. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that he might have ordered the destruction of that press because one of his human flaws was arrogance or a need for revenge. That doesn't make his teachings any more or less true and certainly doesn't make his death at the hands of an angry mob any less tragic. I'm just trying to keep events in perspective based on a lot of research.

They summoned him to stand trial for the destruction of the press, absolutely correct. Once he and Hyrum got there, peacefully turning themselves in, they changed the charges to treason. The governor gave his word that no harm would come to the Smith's. @

Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith

[Vort]

Correct me if I'm wrong here... I'm an independent investigator so I get my information on church history from numerous sources, but didn't Joseph Smith turn himself in on charges that he order the destruction of a newspaper press that printed an unfavorable story about him? I'm not saying he was guilty or anything (he never even got to stand trial) but based on all the local history and reports there was good reason to believe he might have been involved. Once again, not claiming he was guilty, but turning yourself in to be held until you stand trial for a crime in which there enough evidence to warrant a trial isn't the same as being locked up on false charges.

Do you know a different version of the events than I do? Obviously I'm not arguing that an angry mob murdered the brothers and that it was a tragedy and that even if they were actually guilty they wouldn't have deserved death sentences, but to say they were falsely imprisoned is a bit of a stretch. Whether or not he was a prophet of God, no one is going to deny that Joseph Smith was a man with human flaws like everyone else. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that he might have ordered the destruction of that press because one of his human flaws was arrogance or a need for revenge. That doesn't make his teachings any more or less true and certainly doesn't make his death at the hands of an angry mob any less tragic. I'm just trying to keep events in perspective based on a lot of research.

By the way, Joseph Smith absolutely did order the destruction of that press. There is no doubt about that. What is in doubt is whether that constituted an illegal or criminal act. Several modern legal scholars (including Oaks in Carthage Conspiracy) have suggested that, according to the practices of the time, destroying a press and scattering the type of a libelous publication may have been completely legal and justifiable.

[Spartan117]

earlier, the actual Book of Mormon is a tough read (as are parts of the bible) but I have studied the scriptures pretty thoroughly. I guess I want to see revelation and doctrine on those hazy issues where I would expect a prophet to be able to get clarity from God.

Can we become gods?

We can become exalted, you know in your thorough study of the scriptures there are instances where people have worshiped angels? And the angels are offended? But at the time, and to us now, they have attributes of God, gods themselve yes, God our Eternal Father, no and never.

Do we get our own planets if we're exalted? What's the deal with plural marriage in the CK? What happens to my family after we die if we're not sealed together? What is his will regarding faithful members who are unequevically homosexual and incapable of opposite sex attraction?

unequevically homosexual is a political talking point to get people off the hook so they aren't labeled as gay bashing. From tests of thousands of people to the former head of the human genome project who says, and I quote ...

“Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project ...

Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following:

"An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predetermination."

The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism!

Dr. Collins noted that environment—particularly childhood experiences—as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways.

Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded, "Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us."

Why couldn't blacks have the priesthood?

Lineage more than skin color was the source of that, but during the political and social standards of the early to mid 1900's, I personally think that if the church had lead the charge for civil rights it would have brought it down. People were still racists, learning line upon line, precept upon precept. There would have been outrage by a lot of members who hadn't learned yet that priesthood is priesthood, that a black person was performing ordinances. It sucks. But once civil rights came into the, the church could lift that ban, shed more light on the subject and not targeted for it.

In your studies, you remember how exclusive the priesthood was back in the day? And how the Gospel of Jesus Christ was NOT to be preached to the gentiles, only to the Jews? Well on the Lord' time, that changed. No one has a problem with that, but with the modern priesthood ban? Why?

Why does the temperature of our beverages have any effect on our immortal souls?

How many types of drinks did they have back then? Gatorade? Pepsi? Red Bull? That were kept freezing cold in their refrigerators? Do not confuse the syntax of 180 year old hand written documents with definitive gaps in LDS theology.

I know that the stock answer to most of this stuff is that "It's not for us to know" but then what's the point of having a direct line to God? I apologize if this sounds combative or like I'm challenging or attacking your faith in any way. I guess I get frustrated when I find so much that no one can explain to me. And I feel like God should be talking to his prophet to clear up the confusions on the doctrine. I don't know how anyone can be expected to follow covenants when so many of those covenants are purposely vague and confusing

The church makes some bold claims for sure. But don't glaze over doctrine, picking out verses that are derogatory against the church or one of it's presidents, spilled out like nothing has a context and expect to come up with a smokin gun.

Answering questions is fine, but it seems like you're reading from literature that has been designed to try and blow holes in the church and it's teachings. After a while it' answering the same old arguments new members parrot back when they first find it, and it gets old real quick. You seem sincere, but if your next post has page 3 of the "questions you need to ask Mormons" I'm reporting you and blocking you.

Hope I was able to help. You have a fine day.

[cooling]

Spartan-- I'm not arguing that the whole situation wasn't wrong. Clearly they were sitting ducks in prison and were not protected properly considering the anti-mormon sentiment in the area. I was just clarifying that they were not falsely imprisoned. They interfered with freedom of the press, and declared martial law in Navuoo. Technically that's enough to bring a man to trial for treason.

JudoMinja-- I get what you're saying completely. I guess I have issues with things where I can read and pray and the answers I get every time are not in accordance with the current official stance of the church. I have searched and searched, both in books and in my soul. None of what I'm writing below is meant to insult anyone's beliefs or argue what's "true" or not. I've asked God about many things, and these are the answers I get back without fail:

1. The WoW should never have been made a requirement of salvation. Coffee and beer are not keystones on which your salvation has ever or will ever be decided. The contents of your heart are far more important than the contents of your stomach.

2. All the temple endowment stuff is for the sake of man. I've researched the ceremonies very very thoroughly. Don't worry, I won't mention anything else about what happens inside the temple, as I know it's a sacred subject not to be discussed casually and I respect your beliefs and your boundaries. What I do hear from God though is that no man's salvation is affected by having their endowments on an eternal level. These ceremonies, much like the ceremonies in any religion, are a tool to help you reach the deep spiritual level where you can learn to dedicate yourself to your salvation and listen for the voice of God when he speaks. You can be endowed and life-time full-tithe payer and sealed to your wife and follow the law of chastity and the WoW and never miss a Sunday at church, but if you're mean, selfish, and make those around you unhappy then you're less qualified to exaltation than an agnostic who spreads joy and happiness. Once again, the contents of your heart are what matters.

3. There are many paths to God. We all have "One True Path" but it's not the same path for everyone. You are all happy in the Mormon church because it is your path. It's the way that you better yourself and find spiritual fulfillment and learn to be righteous and find your way back to the kingdom of God. You have found a clearly laid out path from point A to point B and you want to share that knowledge with everyone you know. What I hear from God when I pray about this though is that just because we're all trying to get to point B doesn't mean we all start at point A. We are all different people and if we listen then God will lead us to the path that will bring us home to him. I've asked him to show me my path and I've been told on no uncertain circumstances that my path is one of exploration and learning and sharing and growing. Settling down in a religion, no matter how good the church was, would cause a sort of spiritual stagnation in me. My path is not a common one, but it's not any more right or more wrong than anyone elses. I can't follow a single doctrine because when I stop exploring and seeking truth with an open heart then my spiritual growth will stop. Saying I'm a member of any specific religion and that I believe in the doctrine completely means that I can't truly explore other faiths with an open mind and an open heart.

4. There's something in the LDS faith that I need to learn in order to grow. I've studied numerous faiths but I find myself drawn to the Mormon teachings over and over again, like I'm not done with them yet and I need to learn more. If I seem frustrated when I inquire here it's because I sometimes get frustrated because I feel like there's all this knowledge here that I can't quite nail down yet.

There's more to it, but in the interest of not writing a novel I'll stick with those four. Basically, I know that I need to keep studying the Book of Mormon and all the various histories of the church, and finding stories of faith and testimony. Something really important to my spiritual growth is here amongst the members of this church. I'm just trying to quiet my mind enough to hear what that is.

[AGStacker]

It's so simple? I was told that when I first joined the church and over looked it. I was seeing what I wanted to see. Can't imagine being black and hearing that. Seems like crap to further justify racism by BY.

Anyone willing to elaborate on that for me?

They were never promised the priesthood. The priesthood was only promised to Abraham's seed. See, it's so simple you don't understand it.

[cooling]

Ha! I've never read "Questions you need to ask Mormons." If any of my inquiries sound like points of contention to the faith it's probably because all the easy questions I've found answers to already. This is the stuff I'm stuck on. If I were trying to "Blow holes in the religion" I'd be bringing up anachronisms in the Book of Mormon and stuff like that. You are all intelligent people and you clearly have access to the internet. I'm sure you've read the arguments against the church, and you still have complete faith, and that's why I'm directing these questions to members and not non-members or ex-members.

Gotta say, I'm not sure why you would threaten to block my account for asking questions. Aren't we supposed to question and learn and grow? Just because God hasn't seen fit to give us answers to the tough questions yet does that mean we should stop asking them? I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I really don't see how this went from theological discussion to me trying to blow holes in your faith.

[Spartan117]

Spartan-- I'm not arguing that the whole situation wasn't wrong. Clearly they were sitting ducks in prison and were not protected properly considering the anti-mormon sentiment in the area. I was just clarifying that they were not falsely imprisoned. They interfered with freedom of the press, and declared martial law in Navuoo. Technically that's enough to bring a man to trial for treason.

Which they were happy to do once they coerced him to turn himself in on charges of vandalism or destroying private property, or something along those lines. He got there, was sworn protection from the Gov who turned the charges from destruction of property to treason. Then the governor left town. They were murdered. No one ever stood trial for it.

[skippy740]

They were never promised the priesthood. The priesthood was only promised to Abraham's seed. See, it's so simple you don't understand it.

And yet, anyone (regardless of race) can be "grafted" into the tree of the House of Israel.

Jacob 5 

[cooling]

Five people stood trial for it. They were acquitted despite massive amounts of evidence that they were guilty, but they did stand trial. Don't mean to split hairs here, but I think it's important to be concise in the places where we can be concise.

[Spartan117]

Ha! I've never read "Questions you need to ask Mormons." If any of my inquiries sound like points of contention to the faith it's probably because all the easy questions I've found answers to already. This is the stuff I'm stuck on. If I were trying to "Blow holes in the religion" I'd be bringing up anachronisms in the Book of Mormon and stuff like that. You are all intelligent people and you clearly have access to the internet. I'm sure you've read the arguments against the church, and you still have complete faith, and that's why I'm directing these questions to members and not non-members or ex-members.

Gotta say, I'm not sure why you would threaten to block my account for asking questions. Aren't we supposed to question and learn and grow? Just because God hasn't seen fit to give us answers to the tough questions yet does that mean we should stop asking them? I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I really don't see how this went from theological discussion to me trying to blow holes in your faith.

Block as in I won't see your stuff, you won't see mine. I have no authority on this forum whatsoever and can not effect your account. I expect it will be that way for quite some ever too. But you have several posts now overflowing with questions now into the double digits that are run-of-the-mill anti questions that have been answered over and over. I don't know why you haven't gone over your points one at a time instead of spilling them out on the desk. I love answering question so if I'VE the one who has misread into this then I sincerely do apologize. I'm still trying to figure out the proper way to field and answer legit questions as opposed to troll question. Your posts are all over the place. And you respond with even more questions, again just spilled out. It's hard to keep up, especially when I get down trying to answer your fist 10 questions and in the mean time 3 more posts like it have popped up is all.