Mormon Fundamentalism: Blacks & the Priesthood

[madhatter85]

Sthatting, i;m still waiting for a response to my post, i wish to know how you explain or cast aside the evidence i have brought to the table.

 

[Sthatting]

Are you claiming that the Bible does not show that the Gentiles at one point could not recieve the gospel and then the law was changed to allow them to?

If not, why don't you answer my question?

I do not disagree with that statement. It was your reference for blacks and the priesthood in the restoration that I disagreed. Apparently, they could hold the priesthood back during the ministry of Jesus.

 

[Sthatting]

Does that mean you disagree?

By all means, feel free to correct me. I just figured that was it since that is what most fundies claim.

I think you read too much into my statements. I was agreeing with you.

 

[Sthatting]

She was referring to Elder Peterson, not a prophet.

My point exactly.

 

[Sthatting]

Sthatting, i;m still waiting for a response to my post, i wish to know how you explain or cast aside the evidence i have brought to the table.

Okay. I thought about it for a while. This is not doctrine as far as I know. This is my personal hypothesis. Just want to clear that up. I may very well be wrong on this.

Old Testament - No blacks could hold the priesthood. It was only the descendants of Levi.

New Testament - Blacks were allowed to hold it in order to encourage growth.

Restoration - God no longer needed blacks to hold the priesthood, so he released them from the Lord's service.

Plainly said, God uses his resources. Jesus said "I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." He used Ruth, a woman, when no man answered God's call to fight.

Hope that makes sense. Like I said, this is a hypothesis not doctrine.

 

[Comprehend]

I do not disagree with that statement. It was your reference for blacks and the priesthood in the restoration that I disagreed. Apparently, they could hold the priesthood back during the ministry of Jesus.

ok.... so would you like to answer the question now?

The suspense is killing me.

 

[Comprehend]

I think you read too much into my statements. I was agreeing with you.

You have a strange way of doing it.

 

[SoyLeche]

You have a strange way of doing it.

You don't have the habit of ending the posts where you agree with someone with a . That's your problem.

 

[Sthatting]

ok.... so would you like to answer the question now?

The suspense is killing me.

Here's the question that I'm trying to answer. If it's the wrong one, correct me. These entries have been spread out over a time period of several days so I may have mixed things up.

--------------------------------------------------

Old Testament - No blacks could hold the priesthood. It was only the descendants of Levi.

New Testament - Blacks were allowed to hold it in order to encourage growth.

Restoration - God no longer needed blacks to hold the priesthood, so he released them from the Lord's service.

Plainly said, God uses his resources. Jesus said "I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." He used Ruth, a woman, when no man answered God's call to fight.

Hope that makes sense. Like I said, this is a hypothesis not a doctrine.

--------------------------------------------------

Does that answer your question or did I completely miss it?

 

[Sthatting]

Let me just state that I feel like I'm sorta being attacked here. I'm not a genius. If I have given that impression, my apologies. When it comes to Mormon Fundamentalist doctrine, I don't know everything.

If a Mormon Fundamentalist is embarrassing to the LDS community here (which I sincerely apologize if that is the case), I'd be happy to leave. No point in staying someplace where you're not welcome, right?

I'm not fishing for compliments either. Please don't respond to this unless you want me gone.

 

[madhatter85]

Sthatting, here's a couple scriptures for you to chew on.
3rd Nephi 15

6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled.
7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come.

Mormon 9:

7 And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;

8 Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.
9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

do you not see how contradicting you are? you say that god will never give blacks the privledge of the priesthood because you say that God is an unchageable god? yet, he is a god of mircales, and just because he has one thing done a certain way for a time, that he cannot bring to pass revelation for a higher law? a higher order? According to the words of Mormon, you do not read the scriptures, and if you do read them, you do not understand them.

 

[Comprehend]

Here's the question that I'm trying to answer. If it's the wrong one, correct me. These entries have been spread out over a time period of several days so I may have mixed things up.

--------------------------------------------------

Old Testament - No blacks could hold the priesthood. It was only the descendants of Levi.

New Testament - Blacks were allowed to hold it in order to encourage growth.

Restoration - God no longer needed blacks to hold the priesthood, so he released them from the Lord's service.

Plainly said, God uses his resources. Jesus said "I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." He used Ruth, a woman, when no man answered God's call to fight.

Hope that makes sense. Like I said, this is a hypothesis not a doctrine.

--------------------------------------------------

Does that answer your question or did I completely miss it?

you missed it. maybe you could go back a page or two and just reply to my question?

 

[Comprehend]

Let me just state that I feel like I'm sorta being attacked here. I'm not a genius. If I have given that impression, my apologies. When it comes to Mormon Fundamentalist doctrine, I don't know everything.

If a Mormon Fundamentalist is embarrassing to the LDS community here (which I sincerely apologize if that is the case), I'd be happy to leave. No point in staying someplace where you're not welcome, right?

I'm not fishing for compliments either. Please don't respond to this unless you want me gone.

I don't think anyone wants you gone and you aren't embarrassing to the LDS community in my opinion. You guys are doing your own thing.

It's just that this website is to debate religion and we are trying to debate religion with you. If you would rather not debate LDS members about doctrine, maybe you could just say that you don't want to debate LDS members...?

 

[Bishka]

I don't think anyone wants you gone and you aren't embarrassing to the LDS community in my opinion. You guys are doing your own thing.

It's just that this website is to debate religion and we are trying to debate religion with you. If you would rather not debate LDS members about doctrine, maybe you could just say that you don't want to debate LDS members...?

I don't think he wanted to debate, that's why it was in the LDS DIR forum.

 

[madhatter85]

the problem is, he is not a Latter-day saint. if this is a DIR subject he shouldn't be in this forum.

 

[SoyLeche]

the problem is, he is not a Latter-day saint. if this is a DIR subject he shouldn't be in this forum.

He's as much a Latter-Day Saint as we are Christian. I guess they could put a "Fundamentalist LDS" sub-forum, but it's place would be within the LDS subforum.

 

[Comprehend]

I don't think he wanted to debate, that's why it was in the LDS DIR forum.

oops. I thought he started this thread to debate the topic after it was brought up in his welcome thread.

So what are the rules about members of the same IR disagreeing?

 

[Bishka]

oops. I thought he started this thread to debate the topic after it was brought up in his welcome thread.

No, I think he was just trying to explain himself, and *some* people jumped all over him. :cover:

Mistakes happen though.

 

[madhatter85]

He's as much a Latter-Day Saint as we are Christian. I guess they could put a "Fundamentalist LDS" sub-forum, but it's place would be within the LDS subforum.

wrong, he is not LDS, he has his religion title as "True Mormon" which is kind of insulting but i let it slide, and He practices poligamy and "fundamentalist" ideals. those found practicing those things who are part of the LDS church are excommunicated.

Gordon B. Hinckley even stated, "There is no such thing as a fundamentalist mormon."

I don;t care if you create a Sub forum, but he is not part of the LDS community and should not be representing us.

I don't care if they represent themselves separately, that is fine as logn as there is a clear definition that they are not "Mormon", or "LDS"

 

[DeepShadow]

I don't see Sthatting as trying to represent us. He's trying to represent a different branch of Mormonism, and he's welcome to do so. I think having him here will help people differentiate between us and FLDS.

Sthatting, welcome to the forums. I believe I just answered a question of yours on the LDS foru.ms site. Glad to see you here, too!