I feel called to the LDS Church...but I still don't know if it's true

[Dorian]

I need a little help. I feel really attracted to the LDS Church. I've read the Book of Mormon, read about Joseph Smith, prayed about it, and have been experiencing all those little experiences and attractions that your Church says is part of a testimony. There are several LDS doctrines, like your understanding of the Godhead, that make a lot of sense to me. However there are other areas that I feel really, really uncomfortable about and I don't know if any amount of study or prayer will change my mind. 

I'd really like to overcome these issues so I'm going to list the two major ones below and any help, advice, or explanations anyone could offer would be really appreciated.

1. The idea that Heavenly Father had His own father, and that there are other worlds with other gods and goddesses ruling them. To me this just seems like polytheism (even if you only worship one God) and the defining characteristic of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Jews believed in only one  God. It seems to me that monotheism is central to the Old Testament.

I know Joseph Smith taught that 'Elohim' was a plural, but I find the explanation that it's a superlative much more consistent with the rest of scripture. The whole doctrine seems to make God secondary to a grand circular process (or, one eternal round).
 

 

2. The Church's history with black people. I know that the LDS Church holds to continuing revelation, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but when I read quotes like the ones below I really wonder how close these men were to God.

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'" - Apostle Mark Petersen to BYU students, 1954.

How can a man who is supposed to be a successor of the apostles and be incredibly close to God hold such disgusting views? Furthermore, even if the restriction has been lifted, it still means that in the past God excluded black people from the priesthood and exaltation which just seems completely illogical given that we're all made in His image. There are lots and lots of other quotes like this too from apostles and presidents dating from Brigham Young's time all the way through to the 1970's.

Anyway, those are the two major issues I have and was hoping to get your perspective on them.

Thanks!

 

[The Folk Prophet]

1. The idea that Heavenly Father had His own father, and that there are other worlds with other gods and goddesses ruling them. To me this just seems like polytheism (even if you only worship one God) and the defining characteristic of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Jews believed in only one  God. It seems to me that monotheism is central to the Old Testament.

I know Joseph Smith taught that 'Elohim' was a plural, but I find the explanation that it's a superlative much more consistent with the rest of scripture. The whole doctrine seems to make God secondary to a grand circular process (or, one eternal round).

 

This idea is not canonized. You may feel free to disbelieve it, or simply ignore it, and still be a Mormon in good standing. We honestly do not know how this all works. All we know is that God is God and that He is all that matters. We worship Him and He has promised that we may inherit all that He has if we are obedient to Him.

 

As much as this idea makes sense to me in that if we are inheriting all that the Father has, and someday becoming gods to rule over our own posterity in the same manner that God rules over His, then it only makes sense that it goes the other direction too. But you will find LDS who do not agree who are good, solid, righteous, temple worthy members.

 

 

2. The Church's history with black people. I know that the LDS Church holds to continuing revelation, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but when I read quotes like the ones below I really wonder how close these men were to God.

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'" - Apostle Mark Petersen to BYU students, 1954.

How can a man who is supposed to be a successor of the apostles and be incredibly close to God hold such disgusting views? Furthermore, even if the restriction has been lifted, it still means that in the past God excluded black people from the priesthood and exaltation which just seems completely illogical given that we're all made in His image. There are lots and lots of other quotes like this too from apostles and presidents dating from Brigham Young's time all the way through to the 1970's

 

You really need to read/understand the Mark E. Petersen quote in context of the time. The literal fact of the matter is that the Priesthood was restricted at that time. Therefore, to marry someone who could not hold the priesthood meant (according to the understanding at the time) a forfeiture of priesthood to one's posterity. It had nothing to do with the eternal value of their souls. And, as the church has explained, the culture was different. Leaders of the church, in spite of being good men, are products of their culture, and are not perfect in all their views and understandings.

 

As far as the ban itself goes, there are scriptural examples even biblical, where the priesthood was restricted because of race. I'm not sure how it can be a theoretical problem at one point and not at another. Is it a problem that only Aaron and his sons (Levites) had the priesthood rights in Moses' time? Or that they were restricted from having the higher (Melchizedek Priesthood) at all? This really just comes down to trusting God and trusting that it will all work out in the end, that He will be fair and just, and that, ultimately, in spite of the seemingly unfair matters of mortality, that God is no respecter of persons in the eternal scheme of things.

[estradling75]

Dorian...

 

How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

 

There is a lot details and history to the Restored Gospel and it is easy to look at it all and say I can't do this.  But scriptures say the Lord teaches us line upon line.  So take what you know and live it, apply it, do it.  As you do so the Lord will give you more.

 

There are many members who struggle with certain ideas or concepts in the Gospel.  Some struggle with the same things you do, some struggle with other things.  These struggles don't mean that they are bad members or failures and should not go to church.  They simply need to hold on to what they got and live the best they can.  Which really is all any of us can do.

[SpiritDragon]

Hi Dorian,

 

let me just focus on #2 this morning.

 

In the OT the priesthood was even more restricted than it was in 1954. Anyone outside the lineage of Levi with few possible exceptions was not eligible for the priesthood. The children of Israel were also forbidden to marry foreigners. It may seem ugly and narrow minded, but it was God's decree, and before I would accuse God of being too exclusive, I'd be more inclined to accept my own lack of understanding while accepting He has a purpose.

[bytor2112]

So many people get all up in arms regarding the Priesthood ban, yet, the church did not deny baptism and was opposed to slavery. Check out the history of other Christian churches and you will find that they supported, slavery, discrimination and segregation. Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal and Catholic to name a few

[Suzie]

2. The Church's history with black people. I know that the LDS Church holds to continuing revelation, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but when I read quotes like the ones below I really wonder how close these men were to God.

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'" - Apostle Mark Petersen to BYU students, 1954.

How can a man who is supposed to be a successor of the apostles and be incredibly close to God hold such disgusting views? Furthermore, even if the restriction has been lifted, it still means that in the past God excluded black people from the priesthood and exaltation which just seems completely illogical given that we're all made in His image. There are lots and lots of other quotes like this too from apostles and presidents dating from Brigham Young's time all the way through to the 1970's.

Anyway, those are the two major issues I have and was hoping to get your perspective on them.

Thanks!

 

 

Church leaders are also men, including the Prophet which also means they are product of their time, beliefs and culture. Brigham Young said some horrible things about black people but we are judging him through the eyes of our modern-day understanding of race. He was a 19th century old man with all the typical beliefs of a person during that time.

 

About the other quotes (and there are certainly quite a few) it is my opinion that no one is immune from prejudice and bigotry.

[Windseeker]

So many people get all up in arms regarding the Priesthood ban, yet, the church did not deny baptism and was opposed to slavery. Check out the history of other Christian churches and you will find that they supported, slavery, discrimination and segregation. Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal and Catholic to name a few

 

My Dad served his whole mission in Brazil (3 years at the time) teaching and baptizing mostly those who could not hold the Priesthood at that time.

[spamlds]

It's wonderful that you are considering joining the Church.  It's great that you have an understanding of the Bible enough to ask good questions.  Most of all, it's great that you sincerely want to do the Lord's will.  

 

I think that last one is the most important.  Think for a moment about the way Jesus asked for a commitment from people.  He told some of them to come and follow him, right that minute.  Imagine that you lived in that time.  All you could see concerning the Lord during his mortal ministry was that he was an itinerant preacher who taught some familiar things and some things that seemed to defy the old ways and the old teachers.  The "experts" and the learned men of his day dismissed Jesus.  They used their scriptures to prove to themselves they should be looking for another Messiah.

 

Imagine you had heard all the hearsay.  You heard that Jesus did miracles, that he healed people, walked on water, and fed a multitude with only a few loaves of bread and some fish.  You didn't see those things.  You can only accept or reject the testimony of those who say it happened.  Then you talk to your clergymen and they said that Jesus was a phony and a fraud.  The anti-Christian literature of the day sounds a lot like today's anti-Mormon literature.  The Pharisees spread the word that Jesus was from a disreputable family, who left home in shame when Mary got pregnant out-of-wedlock and went to Egypt.  While in Egypt, Jesus picked up a few magic tricks that fooled the unschooled rubes. 

 

Now imagine that you've heard all of this anti stuff and yet, when you hear him teach, you feel something special.  When you practice his teachings, you feel closer to God.  Imagine that, in this moment, he asks you to forsake all and follow him today.  How would you decide?  There isn't time to spend months researching it.  Even if you did, there's so much conflicting material, you can't figure out if it's true or not.  But there he is asking you to follow him right now.  How do you decide?

 

In my experience, you have to trust your heart.  You pray about it and trust that God won't lead you astray.  You will never know all that you might want to know beforehand.  The time for the decision is now.  What you have to do is ask God with sincerity and promise you'll follow whatever he tells you--and mean it.  You'll find that your answer about what to do will come.  Trust in God.  We ask people to study, ponder, and pray.  Asking God is important and it sounds like you've done a lot of the first two steps already.  If Jesus asked you to follow him today, would you do it?  The invitation to join the Church comes from him also.  Pray.  Maybe do a day of fasting.  Then act on the answer that comes.  Don't be afraid.  You don't have to trust us.  You just have to trust what God will tell you.

[Blackmarch]

 

I need a little help. I feel really attracted to the LDS Church. I've read the Book of Mormon, read about Joseph Smith, prayed about it, and have been experiencing all those little experiences and attractions that your Church says is part of a testimony. There are several LDS doctrines, like your understanding of the Godhead, that make a lot of sense to me. However there are other areas that I feel really, really uncomfortable about and I don't know if any amount of study or prayer will change my mind. 

I'd really like to overcome these issues so I'm going to list the two major ones below and any help, advice, or explanations anyone could offer would be really appreciated.

1. The idea that Heavenly Father had His own father, and that there are other worlds with other gods and goddesses ruling them. To me this just seems like polytheism (even if you only worship one God) and the defining characteristic of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Jews believed in only one  God. It seems to me that monotheism is central to the Old Testament.

I know Joseph Smith taught that 'Elohim' was a plural, but I find the explanation that it's a superlative much more consistent with the rest of scripture. The whole doctrine seems to make God secondary to a grand circular process (or, one eternal round).

I have yet to get an answer by revelation/inspiration as to whether God the Father has a father.. so that is something i don't need to know yet or is not that important for me at this time. So from my experience this question is something that you could probably put off safely. 

But if this is important to you, Have you asked yourself both sides of the question? - If God the Father has a father, does that affect me and my relationship with christ in any way?

and same with the inverse- if god the Father does not have a father does it affect me and my relationship to christ? If its really important to you i suggest fasting and prayer to go with that.

now i have had some inspiration when i had pondered these when i had some trouble at the concept; the first thing that came was a question- "Does it matter?". Then i had this thought come to me; only christ is able to buy our redemption and no other being will do so or capable of doing so and after he has redeemed us and has done his work he will present us to his Father and none other. Since then it has mattered not one bit to me whether God has a Father or a God above him or not.

 

also earlier hebrew concept of monotheism is a bit different than what it was by the time of Christ's mortality. In earlier times the concept of there being more than one being that had power. for example many of the earlier israelites believed that God had a wife (now whether or not these people were ones that were under condemnation  by the prophets or not has still to be determined). monotheism and polytheism kid of describe it but not very accurately.

 

2. The Church's history with black people. I know that the LDS Church holds to continuing revelation, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but when I read quotes like the ones below I really wonder how close these men were to God.

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'" - Apostle Mark Petersen to BYU students, 1954.

How can a man who is supposed to be a successor of the apostles and be incredibly close to God hold such disgusting views? Furthermore, even if the restriction has been lifted, it still means that in the past God excluded black people from the priesthood and exaltation which just seems completely illogical given that we're all made in His image. There are lots and lots of other quotes like this too from apostles and presidents dating from Brigham Young's time all the way through to the 1970's.

Anyway, those are the two major issues I have and was hoping to get your perspective on them.

Thanks!

at one point it was only jews that could hold the priesthood. and that God's people were commanded at one point to drive out or kill everyone else that lived in the promised land.

so it does not bother me that not everyone is allowed to hold it, nor does it bother me if the group of those who can is expanded slowly over the many years of time.

however with Brigham young, the church, and etc its a little more complex and there are a ton of variables that come into play. However i think the best point for the ban that occurred was that there was no contesting of it when the apostles supported the action- that God did not inspire any one of them intervene or to vote against it before it was given to the rest of the church.

as for all the different possible concepts as to why there are many. One thing to keep in mind is that to Brigham Young he grew up where that sort of thing was pretty much generally accepted as a fact or something "that is".... Probably never occurred to him ask god about it. that sort of stuff was around before the LDS church existed and likely came in with the converts.

there have been a few in depth blacks and the priesthood type threads ill see if i can find a few.

[Pa Pa]

I need a little help. I feel really attracted to the LDS Church. I've read the Book of Mormon, read about Joseph Smith, prayed about it, and have been experiencing all those little experiences and attractions that your Church says is part of a testimony. There are several LDS doctrines, like your understanding of the Godhead, that make a lot of sense to me. However there are other areas that I feel really, really uncomfortable about and I don't know if any amount of study or prayer will change my mind.

I'd really like to overcome these issues so I'm going to list the two major ones below and any help, advice, or explanations anyone could offer would be really appreciated.

1. The idea that Heavenly Father had His own father, and that there are other worlds with other gods and goddesses ruling them. To me this just seems like polytheism (even if you only worship one God) and the defining characteristic of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Jews believed in only one God. It seems to me that monotheism is central to the Old Testament.

I know Joseph Smith taught that 'Elohim' was a plural, but I find the explanation that it's a superlative much more consistent with the rest of scripture. The whole doctrine seems to make God secondary to a grand circular process (or, one eternal round).

2. The Church's history with black people. I know that the LDS Church holds to continuing revelation, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but when I read quotes like the ones below I really wonder how close these men were to God.

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'" - Apostle Mark Petersen to BYU students, 1954.

How can a man who is supposed to be a successor of the apostles and be incredibly close to God hold such disgusting views? Furthermore, even if the restriction has been lifted, it still means that in the past God excluded black people from the priesthood and exaltation which just seems completely illogical given that we're all made in His image. There are lots and lots of other quotes like this too from apostles and presidents dating from Brigham Young's time all the way through to the 1970's.

Anyway, those are the two major issues I have and was hoping to get your perspective on them.

Thanks!

What Joseph said about God having a Father and so on was a sermon for a funeral and will never be canonized. What Brigham Young said has not been believed for many decades. Not to mention that the Church has admitted as a matter of culture of the times. Also I live in the South, talk about hatred of "negros" (your word so I am reusing it). I am 57, and once we had a negro come in during services and was asked to leave...we have never done this.

[The Folk Prophet]

What Joseph said about God having a Father and so on was a sermon for a funeral and will never be canonized.

 

How can you possibly know that?

[bytebear]

So many people misunderstand the King Follett discourse.  Read the whole thing, in context.  It's much deeper than what you usually hear about and it is absolutely not polytheistic.

[The Folk Prophet]

So many people misunderstand the King Follett discourse.  Read the whole thing, in context.  It's much deeper than what you usually hear about and it is absolutely not polytheistic.

 

Not sure if this is connected to the preceding posts, but the quote about God having a Father, etc., is not from the King Follett discourse.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I need a little help. I feel really attracted to the LDS Church. I've read the Book of Mormon, read about Joseph Smith, prayed about it, and have been experiencing all those little experiences and attractions that your Church says is part of a testimony. There are several LDS doctrines, like your understanding of the Godhead, that make a lot of sense to me. However there are other areas that I feel really, really uncomfortable about and I don't know if any amount of study or prayer will change my mind. 

I'd really like to overcome these issues so I'm going to list the two major ones below and any help, advice, or explanations anyone could offer would be really appreciated.

1. The idea that Heavenly Father had His own father, and that there are other worlds with other gods and goddesses ruling them. To me this just seems like polytheism (even if you only worship one God) and the defining characteristic of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Jews believed in only one  God. It seems to me that monotheism is central to the Old Testament.

I know Joseph Smith taught that 'Elohim' was a plural, but I find the explanation that it's a superlative much more consistent with the rest of scripture. The whole doctrine seems to make God secondary to a grand circular process (or, one eternal round).

 

Anyway, those are the two major issues I have and was hoping to get your perspective on them.

Thanks!

 

There are many Gods but they are also one.  Both can be correct at the same time.

 

John 17; "11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

 

And if we are kept from the world then we can also become one as well, as Jesus prayed would be the case.  Why would Jesus pray that we be one if that is not possible?

 

To be one means to no longer look at oneself as separate.  This is why the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as our self.  That kind of charitble heart is one that could actually see those around her as self, as one.  We are far from that and so it is hard to comprehend but I am sure the Gods see their self as one as well, there is one God. To be a God means that the person loves all those around him/her as self and doesn't distinguish their self as a separate part of the body of one. Our God therefore would not look at all the other Gods as separate, He would look at them as one, therefore He would tell us there is one God.

 

As Christ exemplified in the Garden of Gesthemane it is a godly trait to be able to feel what others feel and to experience what others have experienced.  If Christ did not have that trait then He couldnt have taken on the sins of others.  Our God knows our thoughts, He knows our experience.  This it the pure love of Christ that allowed Christ to atone for us.  We can too have that charitable trait and then gain the ability to be one with others.  What will happen when we know God that well?  We take on His experience and become one with Him as Christ is now one with God.  The glory of God is one, it is like the sun as opposed to the stars, one separate from the other.  

[Pa Pa]

How can you possibly know that?

If not canonized after 170 years, I can say with confidence that the King Follet discourse will never be canonized.

[Pa Pa]

How can you possibly know that?

If not canonized after 170 years, I can say with confidence that the King Follet discourse will never be canonized.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What Joseph said about God having a Father and so on was a sermon for a funeral and will never be canonized. What Brigham Young said has not been believed for many decades. Not to mention that the Church has admitted as a matter of culture of the times. Also I live in the South, talk about hatred of "negros" (your word so I am reusing it). I am 57, and once we had a negro come in during services and was asked to leave...we have never done this.

God having a Father is implied and consistent with our belief that we can become like our Father and that He truly is the Father of our spirits, we are His offspring. We also do not believe in ex nihilo creation.  I think that is one of the biggest hang ups Christians have about believing God had a Father.  This is also consistent with the early teachings of the Church after the apostles explained on LDS.org as this;

 

"Latter-day Saint beliefs would have sounded more familiar to the earliest generations of Christians than they do to many modern Christians. Many church fathers (influential theologians and teachers in early Christianity) spoke approvingly of the idea that humans can become divine. One modern scholar refers to the “ubiquity of the doctrine of deification”—the teaching that humans could become God—in the first centuries after Christ’s death.¹¹ The church father Irenaeus, who died about A.D. 202, asserted that Jesus Christ “did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be what He is Himself.”¹² Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150–215) wrote that “the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.”¹³ Basil the Great (A.D. 330–379) also celebrated this prospect—not just “being made like to God,” but “highest of all, the being made God.”¹⁴

What exactly the early church fathers meant when they spoke of becoming God is open to interpretation,¹⁵ but it is clear that references to deification became more contested in the late Roman period and were infrequent by the medieval era. The first known objection by a church father to teaching deification came in the fifth century.¹⁶ By the sixth century, teachings on “becoming God” appear more limited in scope, as in the definition provided by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (ca. A.D. 500): “Deification … is the attaining of likeness to God and union with him so far as is possible.”¹⁷

Why did these beliefs fade from prominence? Changing perspectives on the creation of the world may have contributed to the gradual shift toward more limited views of human potential. The earliest Jewish and Christian commentaries on the Creation assumed that God had organized the world out of preexisting materials, emphasizing the goodness of God in shaping such a life-sustaining order.¹⁸ But the incursion of new philosophical ideas in the second century led to the development of a doctrine that God created the universe ex nihilo—“out of nothing.” This ultimately became the dominant teaching about the Creation within the Christian world.¹⁹ In order to emphasize God’s power, many theologians reasoned that nothing could have existed for as long as He had. It became important in Christian circles to assert that God had originally been completely alone."

[Traveler]

I need a little help. I feel really attracted to the LDS Church. I've read the Book of Mormon, read about Joseph Smith, prayed about it, and have been experiencing all those little experiences and attractions that your Church says is part of a testimony. There are several LDS doctrines, like your understanding of the Godhead, that make a lot of sense to me. However there are other areas that I feel really, really uncomfortable about and I don't know if any amount of study or prayer will change my mind. 

I'd really like to overcome these issues so I'm going to list the two major ones below and any help, advice, or explanations anyone could offer would be really appreciated.

1. The idea that Heavenly Father had His own father, and that there are other worlds with other gods and goddesses ruling them. To me this just seems like polytheism (even if you only worship one God) and the defining characteristic of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the Jews believed in only one  God. It seems to me that monotheism is central to the Old Testament.

I know Joseph Smith taught that 'Elohim' was a plural, but I find the explanation that it's a superlative much more consistent with the rest of scripture. The whole doctrine seems to make God secondary to a grand circular process (or, one eternal round).

 

 

2. The Church's history with black people. I know that the LDS Church holds to continuing revelation, and I think that makes a lot of sense, but when I read quotes like the ones below I really wonder how close these men were to God.

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of negro blood can hold the priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the priesthood marries a negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a negro is to forfeit a 'nation of priesthood holders'" - Apostle Mark Petersen to BYU students, 1954.

How can a man who is supposed to be a successor of the apostles and be incredibly close to God hold such disgusting views? Furthermore, even if the restriction has been lifted, it still means that in the past God excluded black people from the priesthood and exaltation which just seems completely illogical given that we're all made in His image. There are lots and lots of other quotes like this too from apostles and presidents dating from Brigham Young's time all the way through to the 1970's.

Anyway, those are the two major issues I have and was hoping to get your perspective on them.

Thanks!

 

 

Dorian - I thought I would add something that is missing so far in this thread.  I would point you to the Holy Bible that is the basis of all Christianity.  Ezra 2:61-62

 

 

61 ¶And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name:

 62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

 

Note that in ancient Israel that Priests were not just racially chosen by genealogy but if a ordained priest married outside the prescribed genealogy (racial) they were removed from their priesthood.

 

I do not intend to justify in any way why blacks were not given the priesthood - just to point out that the consideration of pollution because of race is not new to the priesthood - and yet I still do not understand why.

[Dorian]

Hmmm, okay, I see what you say about the priesthood in the Old Testament. I'm still not convinced though becaue

a) That was the Old Covenant, which was restricted to the Jews anyway

B) In the Jewish Faith holding the priesthood was never required before one could be saved, like it is in the LDS faith. If priesthood and temple marriage are required for exaltation then by withholding the restored priesthood from black people you're literally making it impossible for them to return to Heavenly Father, or to be with their families forever.


I'm still really interested in figuring out with stuff about the nature of God, too. It's kind of a big one for me. Even though I know it's not official doctrine, it is something that is believed by most Mormons and seems to be held by the GA's. Also, as some others said, it seems to be logically required in order to make sense of other LDS doctrines.

 

So, does God worship His Father? Does He live with His Father in a celestial kingdom?

Do you ever feel that introducing all these other Gods detracts from Heavenly Father's glory? I mean, if there are Gods before Him then He's no longer the Almighty, or the Most High, or anything like that. 

 

If God has a physical body does He walk around, talk, touch, hug, etc, other people (his wife/wives, spirit children, etc) in Heaven? Do they have houses?

If there is a chain of God's (eternal regression along with eternal progression) then where did it all begin? Is there a God out there that always was? I think atheism is irrational because it requires an infinite regress of causes in order to explain existence, and to me the LDS conception of God seems to suffer from the same problem. It's "turtles all the way down".

Thanks!

 

Edited August 22, 2014 by Dorian

[Durzan]

​Hmmm, okay, I see what you say about the priesthood in the Old Testament. I'm still not convinced though becaue

a) That was the Old Covenant, which was restricted to the Jews anyway

B) In the Jewish Faith holding the priesthood was never required before one could be saved, like it is in the LDS faith. If priesthood and temple marriage are required for exaltation then by withholding the restored priesthood from black people you're literally making it impossible for them to return to Heavenly Father, or to be with their families forever.

 

 

Thats one reason why we have ordinances for the dead. Those who weren't eligible or unable to receive the ordinances and covenants in live have the option to do so in death. God wasn't saying that they never would receive the ordinances... He said that from the time of Brigham Young to 1978, it wasn't a good idea for them to be ordained... in this life. No matter how we might think of it, or how unfair it might seem, God ALWAYS has reasons for how and when he does things. He has not chosen to disclose those reasons to us, because it isn't really necessary for us to know. We can speculate on why, but we will not know until He chooses to confide in us. It is quite possible that some of the reasons he restricted the priesthood we couldn't simply comprehend fully in our mortal state.

 

As for speculation... (And this is my personal believe as to what one of those reasons might be.) IF you think about it a certain way: up until the late 1970's, racism was a very big part of the culture within the US, to the point of lynchings and mob violence. Knowing that, how do you think the racists and bigiots (Both within and without the church) would react if African Americans were ordained to the  priesthood before the late 1970's?

 

By 1978, the Civil Rights movement had wound down, and people were just now starting to accept that as the norm of things. The right circumstances which were necessary for Official Declaration 2 had come. African Americans were freed from slavery, and were now on completely equal terms with others, and thus it was much safer for African American church members.

 

How's that for reasoning?

 

 

I'm still really interested in figuring out with stuff about the nature of God, too. It's kind of a big one for me. Even though I know it's not official doctrine, it is something that is believed by most Mormons and seems to be held by the GA's. Also, as some others said, it seems to be logically required in order to make sense of other LDS doctrines.

 

So, does God worship His Father? Does He live with His Father in a celestial kingdom?

Do you ever feel that introducing all these other Gods detracts from Heavenly Father's glory? I mean, if there are Gods before Him then He's no longer the Almighty, or the Most High, or anything like that. 

 

If God has a physical body does He walk around, talk, touch, hug, etc, other people (his wife/wives, spirit children, etc) in Heaven? Do they have houses?

If there is a chain of God's (eternal regression along with eternal progression) then where did it all begin? Is there a God out there that always was? I think atheism is irrational because it requires an infinite regress of causes in order to explain existence, and to me the LDS conception of God seems to suffer from the same problem. It's "turtles all the way down".

 

Now, This also deals with speculation and personal belief. What I express is what I feel is the truth. I cannot speak for the whole church, or for other members.

 

1. Does God worship His Father?

 

I cannot say for sure, but I would imagine so. The word "Worship" has many meanings, one of which is "adoring reverence or regard", which basically means that when we are commanded to worship God, he is simply asking us to honor Him, be respectful, and to love Him. 

 

Another meaning of the word worship, (more of a connotation than an actual definition) is something along the lines of "To imitate" or "to act like"; or in other words, by trying to be like Christ, we are worshipping him.

 

Why am I explaining this? I'm sure you can see it. God worships his Father: He is like His Father, in the sense that He is a divine being. He honors, respects, and loves His Father... just like He loves us., and as we honor and respect our Father.

 

2. Does God live with His Father in the Celestial Kingdom?

 

Extrapolation based off of what we know of Heavenly Father would seem to suggest so, although I cannot say for certain. It could be that He literally lives with our Heavenly Grandfather, or it could be that He lives with His Father figuratively.

 

I would probably guess it would be figuratively.

 

3. "Do you ever feel that introducing all these other Gods detracts from Heavenly Father's glory? I mean, if there are Gods before Him then He's no longer the Almighty, or the Most High, or anything like that."

 

To put it simply, I do not. Heavenly Father's creations are His own. 

 

The easiest way to think about it would be to include the theory of Multiple Universes. Each God has their own set of creations, their universe or universes, with each having their own set of laws that determine how they are governed, set up as its Creator sees fit. In each of these universes their respective God is the Almighty, or Most High, because they were created by that being, and that God governs His universe.

 

So by that logic, Heavenly Father is still the Most High... of our universe, because He is the highest authority in this universe, and therefore to us. We answer to Him.

 

4. "If God has a physical body does He walk around, talk, touch, hug, etc, other people (his wife/wives, spirit children, etc) in Heaven?"

 

Yes, God can walk around and talk, touch, hug, etc. After all, thats what Jesus did, right? He ate food after being resurrected. Since Jesus is like the Father, it stands to reason that he can do so as well. I think He does, if I am to believe what the Scriptures indicate about Him, HOWEVER, I must also point out that he may have other ways of communicating and expressing His love.

 

"Do they have houses?"

 

Well, I did read in the bible that there were many mansions in Heaven, but that could quite easily be a metaphor. I think they may have houses, but I'm not so sure that there is any real need for houses up in Heaven, except maybe as a way for people to show their depictions of beauty or something like that.

 

5. "If there is a chain of God's (eternal regression along with eternal progression) then where did it all begin? Is there a God out there that always was? I think atheism is irrational because it requires an infinite regress of causes in order to explain existence, and to me the LDS conception of God seems to suffer from the same problem. It's 'turtles all the way down'."

 

"Turtles all the way down" is quite literally how I see it. In order to understand it, you also need to understand how we view Time, which has a very similar "issue" as you call it.

 

The easiest way I can think of to describe it would be to quote from one of my favorite book series, The Wheel of Time: "The Wheel of Time turns, and ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legends fade to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the third age by some, an Age yet to come, an age long pass, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning."

 

Its kinda like that, except time is linear instead of circular, and nothing is forgotten. (The whole time being circular is based on the fact that history repeats itself anyway...) We believe that we all have existed in some form or another for all of Eternity. Eternity literally means infinity... or no beginning or ending... just one continuous line that stretches onward and onward. There is no "THE beginning" or "THE END", but there are beginnings and endings to many things, such as our mortal life, but there is no beginning or ending to Time. Time is the literal definition of Eternity: Infinite. 

 

Its very hard to wrap your mind around. It makes sense, in theory, but when you try to wrap your mind around it, you just can't comprehend infinity. Our minds just cannot take that implication, so we segment time, and place a mark here, and another mark there, and call one the beginning and the other the end.

 

So likewise is the reason why the phrase "Turtles all the way down" seems so illogical. Our physical minds are programed to see in limits and absolutes. Birth and Death, the beginning, and the end.

 

As far as I am concerned, there are an infinite number of Heavenly Beings and generations of Heavenly Beings, just as time itself is infinite. It seems logical to me, based on my understanding of Eternity. If time is infinite, and God is Endless, why couldn't there be an infinite number of Generations of deity?

 

(tl;dr: Really? Go back and read it, one bite at a time.)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2014 by Durzan

[Pa Pa]

Hmmm, okay, I see what you say about the priesthood in the Old Testament. I'm still not convinced though becaue

a) That was the Old Covenant, which was restricted to the Jews anyway

Thanks!

Actually the Levities held the Priesthood.

[Lakumi]

I actually saw a really interesting theory about race and the BoM

[Blackmarch]

thanks for sharing that lakumi. it feels like it hits pretty close to the mark if not on it.. I would point out that jews often used existing things and situations to use symbolically. I wouldn't be surprised if the nephrite skin was a different shade and was considered to be lighter than the lamanite.

[Just_A_Guy]

If not canonized after 170 years, I can say with confidence that the King Follet discourse will never be canonized.

If memory serves, it took 145 years for D&C 137 to make it into the canon.  When you're in a church that purports to be led by modern revelation, "never say never" is a fairly safe maxim to live by. 

 

 

Hmmm, okay, I see what you say about the priesthood in the Old Testament. I'm still not convinced though becaue

a) That was the Old Covenant, which was restricted to the Jews anyway

b ) In the Jewish Faith holding the priesthood was never required before one could be saved, like it is in the LDS faith. If priesthood and temple marriage are required for exaltation then by withholding the restored priesthood from black people you're literally making it impossible for them to return to Heavenly Father, or to be with their families forever.

 

a)  If God could set one set of requirements for the salvation of Jews in 1000 BC and another for the salvation of non-Jews in AD 35, why can't He have one set of requirements for the salvation of blacks in 1848 and another set for the salvation of blacks in 1979? 

b )  Let us assume that holding the priesthood and temple rites are, objectively speaking, required for the exaltation ALL people, regardless of when or where they lived.

 

The LDS Church currently has a policy that it will not do proxy temple ordinances (including, for males, proxy priesthood ordinations) for Jewish victims of the Holocaust (unless a particular victim has a living descendant who authorizes the work).  Theologically, that policy makes it literally impossible for certain Jews to return to their Heavenly Father, or to be with their families forever.

 

Now, the leadership of the Mormon Church--and the bulk of its members--have accepted the policy because i) it facilitates the Church's work in other arenas, and ii) I think most of us have the gut sense that the restriction is temporary and that, sooner or later, the work will be done.

 

If it's OK to do that with dead Jews (who, per Mormon theology, are still conscious and presumably are very frustrated indeed at the delay in the work for their salvation), why is it unacceptable to do that with any other race if the net result is in the Church's best interest?

 

 

I'm still really interested in figuring out with stuff about the nature of God, too. It's kind of a big one for me. Even though I know it's not official doctrine, it is something that is believed by most Mormons and seems to be held by the GA's. Also, as some others said, it seems to be logically required in order to make sense of other LDS doctrines.

 

So, does God worship His Father? Does He live with His Father in a celestial kingdom?  

 

I don't have the time to get into the scriptural details on such a discussion; but I would note in passing that my children's relationship with me in our nuclear family is not remotely threatened or diminished by the existence of my children's grandfather.  As far as my kids are concerned, I'm still "daddy"; and to them, that's all that matters. 

Edited August 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

If not canonized after 170 years, I can say with confidence that the King Follet discourse will never be canonized.

 

The canonization of the King Follett discourse is not really the point. The canonization of the idea that God has a Father is. And you cannot possibly know that this doctrinal idea will never be canonized. Moreover, I'll say it again, the quote from Joseph Smith that God has a Father is not from the King Follett discourse.

 

I could very easily see and idea like this becoming canonized. We know that there is more scripture coming at some point. I would expect further scripture would not simply be a rehash of what we already have (though there would be some of that, obviously) but that ideas only partially known now, and not really understood, would be expounded on and clarified, and it is entirely possible that such ideas could become canonized doctrine of the church.

 

But, who knows what the future holds. 170 years of not canonizing something doesn't tell us anything. When God wants us to know something, he'll let us know.