Only One Truth

[quote]ConorM wrote:
Thank God for pookie, an island of logic in a sea of blind faith.

I read quite a lot of this thread and it is all quite humurous. My religion is better than yours blah blah blah. If there is a God and he is omniscient and onipotent and can only show love and not cause pain, then why would he only offer salvation to the few who choose to follow the one ‘true’ faith.[/quote]

Your expression may seem logical on the surface but we can see the world is not made a better place by everyone carrying their own ideas on these important matters. God wants everyone to understand the truth about him, why we exist, what we should be doing with our lives and by what standards we should be living. Love the color blue if you want, that’s an opinion, but there can only be one truth as to does God exist or doesn’t he. Does he have the right to say how you should use your life or not? Is doing things his way the best way or not? Both options can’t be right. If God forced everyone to do what he wants, people would complain, but when he allows them freedom to do whatever they want they get mad if they’re held accountable. There’s no winning with fickle people.

It’s a fact of life that we’re accountable for how we live. The thing is, if we just follow the standards laid out in the bible they protect and benefit us no matter who we are and where we live. That would be a miracle in itself that 40 different men from all walks of life around the middle east thousands of years ago could express standards to live by that work just as well in our modern western world as in their ancient lives. That reflects a divine understanding of what truly makes humans happy.[quote]

Why would he allow most of the world to be ‘damned’ for simply following their religion or views? If there is one truth, you think its yours don’t you? Boy I will love to see the look on your face when you die and find out there’s no God. Oh wait, you’ll be dead.[/quote]

God is giving everyone the chance to learn what he asks of us and has in store on this earth for us. If we choose to ignore or reject it we’re making our choice and must bear the consequences. The responsibility of God’s servants is to make the truth known but to respect the choices others’ make as they’ll hold account for themselves as long as they’ve been warned.[quote]

I find it interesting that you worship at the feet of possibly the most evil fictional being ever created without questioning for a second your faith in him. A being who killed literally millions of people (this is directly I am not talking about any indirect Tsunami related deaths), including children, whole towns full of innocent people. I could go on and on but I won’t because I think I made my point and you will understand it. Hopefully be able to refute it with some hard evidence.[/quote]

Natural disasters have nothing to do with God. Sadly, it’s a matter of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The divinely directed destruction of certain groups of people is probably one of the more difficult things to explain to people. Ultimately it comes down to do we recognize God’s authority? Not blindly but out of conviction that he only wants what’s best for us. It’s like buying a new car and refusing to follow the maintenance guidelines. You’re only harming yourself and, in time, will pay. In a nutshell, those God destroyed, or had his people destroy in battle, faced that punishment because of disobedience to God’s laws and disrespect toward him. Never, though, was anyone destroyed without due warning. God is just in his decisions and when he acts.[quote]

Does anyone here really believe in creationism? Since you base your life on the bible an all.[/quote]

Creationism as you hear it from fundamentalists is NOT a bible teaching. The bible account in Genesis does not say it took 6 literal days to create everything. A closer examination reveals an allowance for each of those ‘days’ to be thousands of years in length. Without getting into a protracted conversation on evolution or creation, what seems more logical to you: Everything that exists just ‘happened’ on its’ own or that the incredible diversity, beauty, harmony and staggering complexity of life and the universe had an intelligent designer?

The Bible and Tradition

The Fathers did not understand theology as a theoretical or speculative science, but as a positive science in all respects. This is why the patristic understanding of Biblical inspiration is similar to the inspiration of writings in the field of the positive sciences.

Scientific manuals are inspired by the observations of specialists. For example, the astronomer records what he observes by means of the instruments at his disposal. Because of his training in the use of his instruments, he is inspired by the heavenly bodies, and sees things invisible to the naked eye. The same is true of all the positive sciences. However, books about science can never replace scientific observations. These writings are not the observations themselves, but about these observations.

This holds true even when photographic and acoustical equipment is used. This equipment does not replace observations, but simply aids in the observations and their recordings. Scientists cannot be replaced by the books they write, nor by the instruments they invent and use.

The same is true of the Orthodox understanding of the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Neither the Bible nor the writings of the Fathers are revelation or the word of God. They are about the revelation and about the word of God.

Revelation is the appearance of God to the prophets, apostles, and saints. The Bible and the writings of the Fathers are about these appearances, but not the appearances themselves. This is why it is the prophet, apostle, and saint who sees God, and not those who simply read about their experiences of glorification. It is obvious that neither a book about glorification nor one who reads such a book can never replace the prophet, apostle, or saint who has the experience of glorification.

The writings of scientists are accompanied by a tradition of interpretation, headed by successor scientists, who, by training and experience, know what their colleagues mean by the language used, and how to repeat the observations described. So it is in the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Only those who have the same experience of glorification as their prophetic, apostolic, and patristic predecessors can understand what the Biblical and Patristic writings are saying about glorification and the spiritual stages leading to it. Those who have reached glorification know how they were guided there, as well as how to guide others, and they are the guarantors of the transmission of this same tradition.

This is the heart of the Orthodox understanding of tradition and apostolic succession which sets it apart from the Latin and Protestant traditions, both of which stem from the theology of the Franks.

Following Augustine, the Franks identified revelation with the Bible and believed that Christ gave the Church the Holy Spirit as a guide to its correct understanding. This would be similar to claiming that the books about biology were revealed by microbes and cells without the biologists having seen them with the microscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire future teachers to correctly understand these books without the use of the microscope.

And, indeed, the Franks believed that the prophets and apostles did not see God himself, except possibly with the exception of Moses and Paul. What the prophets and apostles allegedly did see and hear were phantasmic symbols of God, whose purpose was to pass on concepts about God to human reason. Whereas these symbols passed into and out of existence, the human nature of Christ is a permanent reality and the best conveyor of concepts about God.

One does not, therefore, need telescopes, microscopes, or a vision of God, but rather, concepts about invisible reality, which human reason is by nature allegedly capable of understanding.

Historians have noted the naivet? of the Frankish religious mind which was shocked by the first claims for the primacy of observation over rational analysis. Even Galileo’s telescopes could not shake this confidence. However, several centuries before Galileo, the Franks had been shocked by the East Roman claim, hurled by Saint Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), of the primacy of experience and observation over reason in theology.

Today’s Latin theologians, who still use their predecessor’s metaphysical approach to theology, continue to present East Roman theologians, such as the hesychasts, as preferring ignorance to education in their ascent to union with God. This is equivalent to claiming that a scientist is against education because he insists on the use of telescopes and microscopes instead of philosophy in his search for descriptive analysis of natural phenomena.

The so-called humanist movement in Eastern Romania was an attempt to revive ancient Greek philosophy, whose tenets had already been rejected, long before modern science led to their replacement in the modern West. To present this so-called humanist movement as a revival of culture is to overlook the fact that the real issue was between the primacy of reason and that of observation and experience.

taken from romanity.org

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
When Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon, I bet he never anticipated that science would EVER exhume his fabled accounts of history and uncover the true genealogy of native Americans. Thanks to DNA evidence, Joseph Smith and Mormonism are exposed for the frauds they truly are.[/quote]

The LDS Church has never claimed that ALL Native Americans or other groups native to Central and South America were direct descendants of Lehi. This link has several articles discussing the subject.

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
When Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon, I bet he never anticipated that science would EVER exhume his fabled accounts of history and uncover the true genealogy of native Americans. Thanks to DNA evidence, Joseph Smith and Mormonism are exposed for the frauds they truly are.

The LDS Church has never claimed that ALL Native Americans or other groups native to Central and South America were direct descendants of Lehi. This link has several articles discussing the subject.

What about Joseph Smith’s people living on the moon and black people being not fully human?

[quote]Fishlips wrote:
What is it about you guys that you unfailingly avoid dealing with the scriptures? What scares you so much about them? For people who claim to have oriented their lives around them, there’s a conspicuous absence of much in the way of scriptural references in any of your posts. Anyhoo, I don’t trace any lineage, it’s irrelevant. Mert already guessed what my faith is earlier as a Jehovah’s Witness. My ministry is normally face to face but I just couldn’t help myself in joining this thread.

So, again, the apostolic succession idea is non-biblical and doesn’t matter what tracing anyone claims to be able to do because of the scriptural prophecy of the ‘apostasy’ that Mert has studiously avoided really addressing and you have chosen not to address either.

Oh, trust me, I’ve looked at the Orthodox Christian Saints thread. Gave me a good chuckle. My earlier reference to a ‘saint’ beaming ‘rice pilaf’ to his master by means of the spirit came from a posting made by you on that thread. You think that should be taken seriously? Gifts of the spirit were not granted for trivial matters. I’m not even going to worry about questioning which of those people really even existed as it’s known from historians’ expressions that many ‘saints’ and what occured in their lives were made-up by the church to shore up their adherents’ faith. Makes sense when you read the often fanciful and ‘soap opera’ like accounts of their lives. I’m sure many of them were also good, well-meaning people. Go back and look at the historical references in so many of my posts. They largely outnumber any history put forth by you and your associates. And many of these ‘saints’ simply kept propagating and adding to the deviant teachings that infiltrated Christianity especially after the last apostle, John, died. So TRUE Christianity laid dormant for many centuries while the apostasy unfolded.

Now this ridiculous point continues to surface. It’s seems you believe the bible just wouldn’t exist without your church and the little council of Nicea. I’m sorry to bring these points to your attention but the bible is GOD’S WORD not the Orthodox Church’s, and history shows the bible, in it’s present state, was already recognized long before that council.

I don’t quote ‘church fathers’ because it’s the bible that counts. If what some ‘church father’ says contradicts scripture it’s valueless. You really should recognize how much you’d rather quote ‘church fathers’ and their opinions than actual scripture. Stick to the bible. The scriptures I quoted before about the Beroeans checking scripture rather than just believing what Paul told them is the way it should be. [/quote]

I think stellar touched on the whole Jehovah’s Witness heresy.

The Holy Bible is a part of the Church. So anytime you talk in reference to the Bible you are talking about the Church. Someone who is in the Church has no need to constantly refer to the Bible, that someone has to live life according to the Church that Jesus Christ established.

what you are saying is that anyone who picks up a medical book (Holy Bible) and reads it can become a doctor (theologian). thank God doctors (Church fathers and saints) need to pass through rigorous exams and practice(purification, sactification, and illumination) before getting board certified otherwise the same chaos in the human religious community would be happening amongst the medical community.

How dare you call the actions of God trivial. you have no knowledge of the purpose of God’s miracles. your audacity is perplexing but common amongst heretics. You truly don’t understand God’s love of man. He was crucified for all of humanity and you think Him allowing a saint’s prayer to make his master happy would be a big deal. your lack in faith is great. from a rational point of view just look at the effect of that miracle, people believed, converted, and saw the saint for what he truly was. the saint went in private to pray to god so that He could perform that miracle. he did not just command it in front of everyone to see. thus was his humbleness and wiseness in his decisions.

In order to be considered a father of the Church you had to possess several qualities. heresies were put down throughout the history of Christianity. realize that temptations can stike any human at any point in time that is why there have been so many Ecumenical councils throughout history. The fact that we have the origianl Apostles and the others that were sent out by Jesus Christ proves that there was a commonality amongst the fathers and that commonality has been maintained throughout history.

laters pk

i’m going to have to slow down with my posts because of my new job which gives me less free time. laters pk

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What about Joseph Smith’s people living on the moon and black people being not fully human?[/quote]

  1. Re: the moon.
    The idea that Joseph taught the moon is inhabited comes from the writing of Oliver B. Huntington in 1881 (his journal) and in 1892 (the Young Woman’s Journal). Huntington claimed that Joseph Smith’s father had given him a patriarchal blessing in 1837 which promised that he would preach the gospel to the moon inhabitants.

Close examination reveals that Huntington was only ten years old when he was given this blessing and that his recollections were made over fifty years later. Also, it turns out that the blessing was given by his own father, not Joseph Smith’s father.

According to a copy of the blessing in the Church archives (Blessing Book, vol.9, pp.294-95), it was only one of many given the same day at the same meeting, and none were recorded in detail at the time. Orson Pratt took sketchy notes as the blessings were given, then filled in details later by consulting those who were there. An examination of the blessing shows that the recorded blessing was much more vague than Huntington remembered.

It also appears that Huntington may have picked up on a rumor that Joseph Smith had given a description of the inhabitants of the moon. This description, which Huntington recorded in his journal, is the original source of the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph described the moon inhabitants. Because his journal is also cited in a Young Woman’s publication of the Church, it supposedly gives more credibility to the critics. The statement, which appeared in a two-page article by Oliver B. Huntington entitled “The Inhabitants of the Moon” in the Young Woman’s Journal, is as follows:

As far back as 1837, I know that he (Joseph Smith) said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we - that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (Young Woman’s Journal, Vol.3, p.263).

From what is quoted here, the most we can conclude is that 0.B. Huntington was familiar with rumors of statements that were attributed to Joseph Smith. However, there is nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith or those who recorded his words prior to his death that even hints of any these views about inhabitants on the moon. This earliest recollection was recorded in 1881, 37 years after his death.

  1. Re: blacks.
    I have never seen an official quote from Josepgh Smith referring to blacks as sub-human. I do know that he was against slavery and was friends with several free blacks. The only quotes I know of from Joseph Smith regarding blacks are these:
  • “I have advised (slaveholders) to bring their slaves into a free country and set them free–educate them–and give them equal rights.” (Compilation on the Negro in Mormonism, p.40)

  • “They [Negroes] came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls and are subject to salvation. Go to Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated Negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.” (History of the Church 5:217)

  • “The Declaration of Independence ‘holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’, but, at the same time, some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours…The Constitution of the United States of America meant just what it said without reference to color or condition, ad infinitum!” (Messages of The First Presidency 1:191-2)

Fishlips:

Not sure, this might be it. It’s nothing personal but I get a lot more value from T-mag when I take time to read the training articles.

At this point, I am Orthodox and I believe Orthodoxy because I have experienced it. I can tell you that when I used to go to Roman Mass in grade school or when I catch a little of a sincere protestant minister preaching on TV, I see emptiness, or a big passion play since I have lived life in the Church. I have a respect for my Roman friends who stand up for it against protestant errors, just as I have respect for my Protestant (or those who call themselves Christian, or pre-reformation Baptist et. al) when they stand up for the Bible against atheist or pagan perversions like abortion and homosexuality.

Maybe a devout Roman’s obedience or a devout Protestants confession of God’s word will save them. Maybe the deeper understanding of an Orthodox person will damn them because they are held to a higher standard.

I want to say that I find your historical take on the dogmas of the Trinity and Eucharist to be interesting. I would have to say that to the non-Orthodox, there’s a case there for looking in to FROM A HISTORICAL perspective. (Anyone open to God is being drawn to Orthodoxy), but an historian might ask questions like-Did the Apostles believe in the Trinity. Don’t get me wrong, I know they did, but I think an objective historian, with the evidence we have today should have to say “there are questions as to the origin of the Trinity doctrine.”

I am interested in some of your biblical points. I will look deeper into the historical development of the New Testament.

My understanding-as I was taught in college biblical history classes-was that the apostles wrote and re-wrote their Gospels many times and carefully considered what to include, for purposes of their audience and even limitations of the length of the scroll they were writing on. Historians can not tell you definitively which precise wording is the oldest; this I am told by protestant biblical scholars who feel they need to establish the historical Christ, and would wish to be able to identify the original text but have to admit they can’t.

I don’t believe its reasonable to suggest that the Jews who became Christian just gave up their 1500 year old weekly order of ceremonial worship. I believe they must have seen themselves as fulfilled Judaism, and immediately developed a transformed order of services but with no animal sacrifices.

I also don’t think it makes sense that Jesus would say “this is my body” or even make such an ANALOGY if the idea was repugnant. Why would he choose a repugnant analogy with no basis in ultimate reality. It would be very poor typology to equate the earthly meal to his body if his body was not the archtypal food.

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
What about Joseph Smith’s people living on the moon and black people being not fully human?

  1. Re: the moon.
    The idea that Joseph taught the moon is inhabited comes from the writing of Oliver B. Huntington in 1881 (his journal) and in 1892 (the Young Woman’s Journal). Huntington claimed that Joseph Smith’s father had given him a patriarchal blessing in 1837 which promised that he would preach the gospel to the moon inhabitants.

Close examination reveals that Huntington was only ten years old when he was given this blessing and that his recollections were made over fifty years later. Also, it turns out that the blessing was given by his own father, not Joseph Smith’s father.

According to a copy of the blessing in the Church archives (Blessing Book, vol.9, pp.294-95), it was only one of many given the same day at the same meeting, and none were recorded in detail at the time. Orson Pratt took sketchy notes as the blessings were given, then filled in details later by consulting those who were there. An examination of the blessing shows that the recorded blessing was much more vague than Huntington remembered.

It also appears that Huntington may have picked up on a rumor that Joseph Smith had given a description of the inhabitants of the moon. This description, which Huntington recorded in his journal, is the original source of the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph described the moon inhabitants. Because his journal is also cited in a Young Woman’s publication of the Church, it supposedly gives more credibility to the critics. The statement, which appeared in a two-page article by Oliver B. Huntington entitled “The Inhabitants of the Moon” in the Young Woman’s Journal, is as follows:

As far back as 1837, I know that he (Joseph Smith) said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we - that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (Young Woman’s Journal, Vol.3, p.263).

From what is quoted here, the most we can conclude is that 0.B. Huntington was familiar with rumors of statements that were attributed to Joseph Smith. However, there is nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith or those who recorded his words prior to his death that even hints of any these views about inhabitants on the moon. This earliest recollection was recorded in 1881, 37 years after his death.

  1. Re: blacks.
    I have never seen an official quote from Josepgh Smith referring to blacks as sub-human. I do know that he was against slavery and was friends with several free blacks. The only quotes I know of from Joseph Smith regarding blacks are these:
  • “I have advised (slaveholders) to bring their slaves into a free country and set them free–educate them–and give them equal rights.” (Compilation on the Negro in Mormonism, p.40)

  • “They [Negroes] came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls and are subject to salvation. Go to Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated Negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.” (History of the Church 5:217)

  • “The Declaration of Independence ‘holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’, but, at the same time, some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours…The Constitution of the United States of America meant just what it said without reference to color or condition, ad infinitum!” (Messages of The First Presidency 1:191-2)[/quote]

Thanks. Its important to me that I not falsely attribute statements to anyone.

I was told by different Mormon friends that blacks were not allowed to be (apostles, ministers ?) for a long time and that there was an apostolic statement maybe in the late 60s that said that this needed to change) When I have asked these friends if it was taught that blacks were “half demon” (a phrase I had heard somewhere attributed to Mormonism) they responded only that that teaching had been abolished, but never said that it wasn’t taught.

Thanks again.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Fishlips:

Not sure, this might be it. It’s nothing personal but I get a lot more value from T-mag when I take time to read the training articles.[/quote]

I’ve certainly not been able to keep up as well with the articles as I would like to either.[quote]

At this point, I am Orthodox and I believe Orthodoxy because I have experienced it. I can tell you that when I used to go to Roman Mass in grade school or when I catch a little of a sincere protestant minister preaching on TV, I see emptiness, or a big passion play since I have lived life in the Church. I have a respect for my Roman friends who stand up for it against protestant errors, just as I have respect for my Protestant (or those who call themselves Christian, or pre-reformation Baptist et. al) when they stand up for the Bible against atheist or pagan perversions like abortion and homosexuality.

Maybe a devout Roman’s obedience or a devout Protestants confession of God’s word will save them. Maybe the deeper understanding of an Orthodox person will damn them because they are held to a higher standard.

I want to say that I find your historical take on the dogmas of the Trinity and Eucharist to be interesting. I would have to say that to the non-Orthodox, there’s a case there for looking in to FROM A HISTORICAL perspective. (Anyone open to God is being drawn to Orthodoxy), but an historian might ask questions like-Did the Apostles believe in the Trinity. Don’t get me wrong, I know they did, but I think an objective historian, with the evidence we have today should have to say “there are questions as to the origin of the Trinity doctrine.”

I am interested in some of your biblical points. I will look deeper into the historical development of the New Testament.[/quote]

History can provide much interesting information. However, strict historians often take the bible as simply man’s writing and often times do their own ‘interpreting’ of history. i.e. instead of viewing miracles performed by Jesus or his apostles or divinely caused natural phenomena for what the scriptures say they were, many historians try to figure out what ‘really happened’ and how the writers of the bible misinterpreted them as miracles or acts of God because of ignorance or lack of knowledge we now have. So, although I can relate much history, we still must be cautious with what we determine is real history. Hope what I just said is clear. College bible classes are a classic example of a source meant to build education of the bible but end up turning out individuals more skeptical than when they went in! [quote]

My understanding-as I was taught in college biblical history classes-was that the apostles wrote and re-wrote their Gospels many times and carefully considered what to include, for purposes of their audience and even limitations of the length of the scroll they were writing on. Historians can not tell you definitively which precise wording is the oldest; this I am told by protestant biblical scholars who feel they need to establish the historical Christ, and would wish to be able to identify the original text but have to admit they can’t.

I don’t believe its reasonable to suggest that the Jews who became Christian just gave up their 1500 year old weekly order of ceremonial worship. I believe they must have seen themselves as fulfilled Judaism, and immediately developed a transformed order of services but with no animal sacrifices.[/quote]

Mert you have brought up a host of ideas that you will have opportunity to see how the bible really weighs in on them. What does it say about the Jews who converted? For many of the Jewish Christians letting go of their former way of worship was an issue that they ultimately had to be counselled on. In 36 C.E., the apostle Peter had a remarkable vision. At that time a heavenly voice commanded him to slaughter and eat birds and animals that were considered unclean under the Law. Peter was shocked! He had never “eaten anything defiled and unclean.” But the voice told him: “You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”(Acts 10:9-15) Peter then discerned matters had changed. He proceeded to follow divine direction and allow for the conversion of the first Gentile, Cornelius, and those in his household. Later, news that uncircumcised Gentiles had “received the word of God” had reached the congregation there, and a number of Jewish disciples were disturbed about the matter. (Acts 11:1-3) While acknowledging that Gentiles could become Jesus’ followers, “the supporters of circumcision” insisted that these people of the non-Jewish nations must observe the Law in order to be saved. On the other hand, in predominantly Gentile areas, where there were few Jewish Christians, circumcision was not necessarily an issue. The two viewpoints persisted for about 13 years. (1 Corinthians 1:10) Finally, in 49CE, many Jewish converts, after arguing with Paul and Barnabas vehemently, turned the matter over to the Governing Body in Jerusalem for resolution. It was their unanimous decision the Law no longer applied to Christians.

Christianity was a fulfillment of the Law which then abolished it. Remember, was the Jewish way of worship acceptable in Jesus’ day? What did he say? During the period from the completing of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures to the coming of Jesus, the Jewish religious leaders added many oral traditions, which they later committed to writing that was not inspired by God. Those traditions often conflicted with the Scriptures. So Jesus told the religious leaders: “Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?..You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.” He applied God’s Word to them when it said: “It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.” (Matthew 15:1-6,9) In his teachings, Jesus never quoted from such traditions. His appeal was to the inspired written Word of God.(Matthew 4:4-10; Mark 12:10; Luke 10:26)
Still another reason why certain professed Christians were eager to observe the Law was outlined by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. He explained that these men wanted to be viewed as respectable, as members of a mainstream religion. Rather than standing out in the community, they were willing to make almost any compromise in order to blend in. They were more interested in gaining the approval of men than in gaining the approval of God. (Galatians 6:12)

There would have been vast changes in the way Jewish Christians now worshiped God.[quote]

I also don’t think it makes sense that Jesus would say “this is my body” or even make such an ANALOGY if the idea was repugnant. Why would he choose a repugnant analogy with no basis in ultimate reality. It would be very poor typology to equate the earthly meal to his body if his body was not the archtypal food.

[/quote]

His expression was only repugnant if taken the wrong way. While Jesus was speaking some said: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus wants his listeners to understand that the eating of his flesh would be done in a figurative way. So, to emphasize this, he says something still more objectionable if taken in a literal way.

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood,” Jesus declares, “you have no life in yourselves. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.”

True, Jesus’ teaching would sound most offensive if he were suggesting cannibalism. But, of course, Jesus is not advocating literally eating flesh or drinking blood. He is simply emphasizing that all who receive everlasting life must exercise faith in the sacrifice that he is to make when he offers up his perfect human body and pours out his lifeblood. Yet, even many of his disciples make no attempt to understand his teaching and so object: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”(John 6:51-60)

So if understood correctly, it wasn’t a problem. But many didn’t bother to discern that.

Luke, however, doesn’t quote Jesus words ‘this is my body’ but rather:
“This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”(Luke 22:20) Did the cup miraculously become that ‘new testament’? No. It was the ACT of drinking that symbolized their faith.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Thanks. Its important to me that I not falsely attribute statements to anyone.

I was told by different Mormon friends that blacks were not allowed to be (apostles, ministers ?) for a long time and that there was an apostolic statement maybe in the late 60s that said that this needed to change) When I have asked these friends if it was taught that blacks were “half demon” (a phrase I had heard somewhere attributed to Mormonism) they responded only that that teaching had been abolished, but never said that it wasn’t taught.

Thanks again.

[/quote]

I appreciate your willingness to try to understand. Actually there was a ban that prohibited them from holding the priesthood until 1978. And actually the ban had to do with lineage and not skin color. There were in fact black members who held the priesthood prior to 1978. I found a link that describes it much better than I can. (Also, I myself have come across other Mormons who don’t really understand what happened either.)

From the link:
Q. Why couldn’t black men hold the Priesthood in the Mormon Church before 1978?

A. Some black men did hold the Mormon Priesthood before 1978. But except in the case of Elijah Abel and his descendants, all men of Hamitic lineage (bloodline) were forbidden to hold the LDS Priesthood before 1978. However, black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, all had a right to the Priesthood, and those who were worthy Members of the Church held it before 1978. Also, white-skinned Hamites could not hold the Priesthood or partake of the higher ordinances of Mormon Temples until 1978.

The Priesthood~Ban

The Priesthood-ban, as it is called, wasn’t really a question of skin-color but of lineage or bloodline. Anyone having one drop of Hamitic lineage was denied the Priesthood (if he was male–only men can hold the Mormon Priesthood), and whether male or female denied the higher ordinances of Mormon Temples. That changed via a Revelation from the LORD in 1978. Since that time, men of Hamitic lineage have received the Priesthood, and all Hamites can receive all the ordinances, blessings, and offices in the Church that anyone else can.

The Priesthood-ban was based upon several verses in a book of Mormon Scripture called The Book of Abraham, which is in a volume of scripture known as The Pearl of Great Price; which, along with the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and The Doctrine & Covenants, is one of the four Standard Works of the LDS Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith claimed to have divinely translated The Book of Abraham from some ancient Egyptian papyrus he came accross in the late 1830s. The papyrus came from Thebes, and included some Egyptian funeral texts. Joseph Smith studied these, and received the revelation we know call The Book of Abraham. In the first chapter of that small book Abraham writes that Pharoah, the king of Egypt, was “a righteous man”, but could not hold the Priesthood because he was a descendants of Ham, and the Hamitic lineage or bloodline was “blessed with wisdom” but “cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood” (Abraham 1:26).

In another revelation of Joseph Smith, called The Book of Moses, also in The Pearl of Great Price, it says that the Cainites, the descendants of Cain, the son of Adam, were “black” (Moses 7:22).

From the time of Brigham Young onward, Mormon Church Presidents (whom Mormons believe to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators of the LORD) have interpreted these verses as Negroes being of the Cainite/Hamitic bloodline, and would not be allowed to hold the Priesthood until the Abelites first had the opportunity. A brief explanation of the Curse of Cain and a brief overview of it’s history in the LDS Church is as follows:

Cain, the eldest son of Adam, had the birthright to the Holy Priesthood. He and his descendants (the Cainites) had the right to receive it first. But Cain offerred a sacrifice to the LORD in a state of unworthiness, or wickedness. The LORD did not accept this offerring, but rejected it. Because Abel’s offerring was made in a state of worthiness, or righteousness, the LORD accepted Abel’s offering, and Cain lost his birthright to Abel; his younger brother.

Cain, being jealous and angry, decided to kill Abel; mistakenly thinking that the birthright to the Priesthood would revert back to him. After this was done, the LORD cursed Cain; made him a wandering upon the earth, and put a ‘mark’ upon him so that anyone recognizing him would not kill him. The ‘mark’ of Cain was a black skin. This was not the curse, but actually a mark of protection from the LORD. The ground would not yield fruit for him. He was to wander the earth. This is known as “The Curse of Cain”.

Instead of Cains descendants receiving the birthright first, they would receive it last. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. The Cainites would be banned from receiving the Priesthood until Abel was resurrected, had children, and all of Abel’s children received it first. Then the curse would be removed from the descendants of Cain, and they would receive the Priesthood and all the blessings thereof.

The Sethites (the descendants of Seth–the third son of Adam and Eve) and the Cainites (the descendants of Cain) were not allowed to intermarry. However, this did happen. The result was corruption, and the LORD decided to destroy the Adamites in a great flood. He chose Noah to save himself, his wife, and his sons, and their wives; along with two of every kind of useful animal in the Ark. According to Mormon teachings, the wife of Ham was Egyptus: a Cainite woman. Thus, the Cainite bloodline, or lineage, continued through the Flood. The descendants of Ham and his Cainite wife Egyptus were Mizraim, Cush, Put, and Canaan. The descendants of Mizraim, Cush, and Put settled in North Africa. Mizraim is the Hebrew name for “Egypt”. Cush is the Hebrew name for Nubia (now Sudan), and Put is thought to have settled in what is now the Ethiopia region. Joseph Smith believed that Negroes were “the sons of Cain” (i.e. the descendants of Cain), and most Mormon Presidents and Apostles have had the same belief. That would mean that black Africans are Cainites (descendants of Cain through Egyptus, the wife of Ham), and Sethites (the descendants of Noah via Ham) as well as Hamites (the descendants of Ham). The Canaanites did not settle in North African, but in the land of Canaan; which is now called Israel, or Palestine.

Elijah Abel, a black man of African descent, and his male descendants, have always had the Holy Priesthood. This is explained because Elijah Abel was of such great faith, that the LORD made an exception in his case and with his descendants. There is a similar situation in the Bible in The Book of Ruth. Because the Moabites (a white-skinned people who were the descendants of Lot, the nephew of Abraham) did not give food or water to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt into the desert, the LORD cursed them; proclaiming that a Moabite would not enter the Congregation of the LORD until the 10th generation. However, Ruth, a 1st generation Moabitess, showed such great faith that the LORD made an exception, and she became an Israelite. Jesus Himself was a descendant of Ruth and Obed. The descendants of Elijah Abel are all white; because Abel’s sons and daughters married white Mormons back in the late 19th century.

Hamites, of whatever skin-color, could not hold the Priesthood or partake of the Higher Ordinances of Mormon Temples; which include Endowments and Sealings. However, they could enter Mormon Temples to be baptized for the dead. They could be Members of the Church. But they could not serve as missionaries. From the 1840s to the early 1960s the Church never had more than 1000 black Members of African descent. However, in the mid-1960s some black Africans started to receive visions in which Jesus or an angel told them about the Church. Some of these black Africans began to find information about the Church, and to preach and form entire congregations, and sometimes their own denominations with tens of thousands of black Africans as members. They called themselves ‘Mormons’ and ‘Latter-day Saints’. The Church tried to encourage these people, but the men were not ordained to the Priesthood.

In the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s the Church received much negative media attention because of the Priesthood-ban. The Church issued strong statements condemning racism, and encouraging its Members to stand for the civil-rights of all Americans; but they also declared that the Priesthood-ban was of the LORD, that it had nothing to do with the ‘civil-rights’ of Americans, and that only the LORD, the Author of the ban, could lift it.

In 1978, the Church was building a Temple in Sao Paulo, Brasil. At that time there were tens of thousands of Mulatto Mormons in Brasil; people with both white and black ancestry. These people had great faith, and sacrificed much to build the Temple in Sao Paulo; the largest city in Brazil. Many of these people knew that they would be allowed in the Temple, but could not partake of the most important ordinances in them. Yet, they still sacrificed to build it. Seeing the exceeding faith of these Mulatto Saints, the General Authorities of the Chuch, who are called “The Brethren”, prayed for months that the Priesthood-ban be finally lifted. On June 1st, 1978, in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple, the LORD communicated to President Spencer W. Kimball, and He lifted the Priesthood-ban from off the Hamitic lineage. The vast great majority of Mormons were overjoyed at the news. Only a few weeks later, the first black men of African lineage since Elijah Abel and his descendants were ordained to the Priesthood, and they and their families soon thereafter received the Higher Ordinances of the Temple.