No Blessings without obedience?

     Mormonism teaches:  “Justice is the unchanging law that brings consequences for actions.  Because of the law of justice, you will receive blessings when you obey God’s commandments (see D&C 130:21-22).”  (True to the Faith, p. 91)

      D&C 130: 20-21 says:  “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

      Many Mormons have cited or referred to this teaching to emphasize that blessings have to be earned.  For example, Bruce R. McConkie wrote:  “The law of justification is the provision the Lord has placed in the gospel to assure that no unrighteous performance will be binding on earth and in heaven, and that no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing.”

      No unearned blessings.  Every blessing predicated upon obedience.  Does that always hold true in Mormonism?  What about resurrection?  “Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected – saved from physical death (see 1 Corinthians 15:22).  Resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the body in a perfect, immortal state, no longer subject to disease or death (see Alma 11:42-45).”  (True to the Faith, p.139)

     I have trouble reconciling the resurrection of all people with Mormonism’s teaching that every blessing is predicated on obedience.  I think it is fair to say that “the reuniting of the spirit with the body in a perfect, immortal state, no longer subject to disease or death” qualifies as a blessing.  Since all and not just some, according to Mormonism, receives this blessing, I wonder how that blessing can be predicated on obedience.  What obedience did Hitler give in order to receive a body in a perfect state, no longer subject to disease or death?

     I think this is an important point.  If the blessing of resurrection is not predicated on obedience, cannot other blessings, including the blessing of forgiveness, also not be predicated on obedience?    That’s what the Bible says:  “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”  (Romans 4:7-8) 

170 Responses to “No Blessings without obedience?”

  1. April 6, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    To my LDS listeners: PLEASE explain the following quote

    D&C 130: 20-21 says: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

    and to be plain about it , the word I am choking on is “ALL”….as in “ALL BLESSINGS….”
    before I go running my mouth off, I’d like to understand this quote a little better

    nice work , MARK

  2. 2 ladonnamorrell
    April 6, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Hey Germie,

    i would like to take a stab at it;

    Heavenly Father is FAIR. there are laws decreed in heaven and each law, when obeyed, qualifies someone for a blessing automatically. i.e.the law of tithing: when we pay our tithing the Lord HAS to bless us…he is ‘bound’. It would not be fair if someone received more of a blessing, less of a blessing or no blessing for obeying the same law. This is an example of Heavenly Father’s fairness and the order of His Kingdom.

    It is NOT really something to make a big deal about. It is simple, straightforward and easy to understand.

    as for resurrection…it is the one truly “free gift”. It comes to all men no matter what..bond or free, male or female, righteous or evil. IT IS FREE. The Savior broke the bands of death and resurrection is the result for all.


  3. April 6, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    LaddonnaM: and a fine good afternoon to you……. you wrote:

    as for resurrection…it is the one truly “free gift”.

    any LDS want to weigh in on this theme ???

    thanks LaddonnaM, no hard frost for you :-)

  4. 4 GB
    April 6, 2009 at 8:36 pm


    I would add some clarification to ladonnamorrell.

    Resurrection is a “free gift” in that there is nothing IN THIS LIFE that will change the fact that all that are born will be made alive (after they die).

    But, it is also a reward for obedience to God in the pre-existence. There, all who chose to follow Christ, were rewarded with an immortal body of “flesh and bones” to be received upon resurrection.

    There those, who chose to rebel against God, were cast out of heaven to the earth (the devil and his followers). They will NEVER receive the blessing of the resurrection.

    Does that clear it up?

  5. 5 GB
    April 6, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    Mark: Since all and not just some, according to Mormonism, receives this blessing, I wonder how that blessing can be predicated on obedience.

    GB: Quite easily!

    M: What obedience did Hitler give in order to receive a body in a perfect state, no longer subject to disease or death?

    GB: As stated above, in the pre-mortal existence, those that were obedient to the will of the Father and followed Christ, were rewarded with the opportunity to come to earth and receive a body. They will all be resurrected, EVEN Hitler.

    Those that rebelled against God were cast out of heaven, to the earth and they will NEVER be born or have a body, or be resurrected.

    M: I think this is an important point.

    GB: It is! I hope you understand it better now.

    M: If the blessing of resurrection is not predicated on obedience, cannot other blessings, including the blessing of forgiveness, also not be predicated on obedience?

    GB: A false conclusion based on false premises.

    M: That’s what the Bible says: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” (Romans 4:7-8)

    GB: Yes, those that repent and return to obedience to God will have those blessings.

  6. 6 ladonnamorrell
    April 6, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    thanks for the clarification GB. I thought about including that myself, but thought it would open up a big can of “pre-mortal existence” worms.


  7. 7 GB
    April 6, 2009 at 9:15 pm


    One of the biggest problems these people have is that they continually compare parts of Mormomism to their over all theology and it doesn’t work.

    It is like taking pieces from one jigsaw puzzle and comparing them to another jigsaw puzzle and then express surprise when they don’t fit.

    Well DUH!!!

  8. April 6, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    Excellent point! For LDS all blessings are based upon obedience. Obedience to what? The LDS ordinances, laws & gospel. Correct?
    If that is so, why are non LDS blessed?
    MY husband is in a quanrdy about this one.
    I “was” faithful LDS for 19 yrs and gave my life over to King Jesus in 2007. According to LDS teachings, I am an “apostate”. According to the temple ritual I have ” in his power now” ( that is lucifer). According to the LDS doctrines my skin should turn dark and I will be sent to outer darkness with the sons of perdition. All because I no longer believe in the LDS gospel and no longer wear my garments and engage in temple ritual.
    So if this is the case I should be a pretty scary person, eh?
    What my husband struggles with is this simply is not the case!
    Since coming to the Lord, my husband has witnessed the gift of Spirit pour down upon me. Nothing of myself, but because Christ lives within me. He can’t explain it. He can’t explain what has happened to me. His once depressed and exhausted wife, is now full of JOY and the Holy Spirit has given her spiritual gifts that are visible to him and he can’t explain it.
    So, if I have been ‘blessed’ how can that be? According to LDS teachings I am a son of perdition and no blessings will come my way.
    That is not what I am expierncing and my sweet husband is confused as all heck.
    These gifts are not because I am “good” or obedient. I have been blessed , as a sinner simply because our God is faithful and merciful, not because I deserve anything of myself. Isaiah said it beautifully when he said his “righteousness was as dirty rags”.
    Boy do I second that,

  9. April 6, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    So if we count our pre-mortal existence, there are NO BLESSINGS that come our way that don’t have some kind of OBEDIENCE attached to it ?? Do I have that right ??


  10. 10 GB
    April 6, 2009 at 10:15 pm

    Gloria: According to the LDS doctrines my skin should turn dark and I will be sent to outer darkness with the sons of perdition.

    GB: WOW, that is a falsehood! With a WHOPPER like that one, can we trust the rest of your “facts”?

    Gloria: According to LDS teachings I am a son of perdition and no blessings will come my way.

    GB: More falsity.

  11. 11 ladonnamorrell
    April 6, 2009 at 10:23 pm


    Did someone say that you had to be a mormon to get blessings? if so, i missed it.

    ALL laws that are obeyed qualify for a blessing. That is what that scripture says.

    IF you were “faithful” as a member of the Church, you would still be one. Obviously you lost something along the way. The Lord will judge your heart.


  12. 12 ladonnamorrell
    April 6, 2009 at 10:38 pm


    you asked: “So if we count our pre-mortal existence, there are NO BLESSINGS that come our way that don’t have some kind of OBEDIENCE attached to it ?? Do I have that right ??”

    me: pretty much, that is what it says. Isn’t it wonderful that Heavenly Father is so fair that we ALL can be assured of equal treatment? Kind of like the celestial version of “what goes around comes around”! I don’t think the reverse is true, i.e. sometimes we receive trials that we don’t think we deserve. That is not necessarily punishment, but a trial to test our faith or help us grow.

    It would be nice that IF we stepped off the straight and narrow path the Lord ZAPPED us so we could just jump back on. I think that is what Gloria expected to happen. But that would take away our reward for walking by faith. Life just ain’t that easy!


  13. 13 Roger D. Casterline
    April 6, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    The main theme to my book, “The IKE Disease,” is obedience to parents. As a high school guidance counselor I can testify that every student who made it their business to disobey their parents suffered great hardship, without exception. Doing durgs, permartial sex, committing crimes, etc., are not the problem for teenagers, they are only symptoms. The root cause of all teenage problems is disobedience to parents. I was a middle school counselor for a couple of years, and was amazed at what kids would do find favor with their peers. Most of the things they tried ended up causing them problems. Let’s look at Jesus to see how He found favor with others. (Luke 2: 41-52) When Jesus was twelve years old (middle school age) he traveled to Jerusalem with his parents to attend a festival, Feast of the Passover. After the festival, Jesus’ parents returned home, and after one full day into their journey, they realized Jesus was not in the caravan. They returned to Jerusalem and after three days they found Him in the temple sitting in the midst of the teachers listening and asking questions. The teachers were amazed at His understanding and His answers. When His parents found Him they said, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And Jesus answered, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” By His answer we know that Jesus knew who He was yet he was still in the flesh with the same desires to find favor as other children His age. Knowing that He was God’s Son, wouldn’t it make sense for Him to stay in the temple and teach with miracles, signs, and wonders. Think of all the good He could do. Why He would be king of the world finding favor with all of mankind. However, Jesus, was not interested in finding favor with men but rather His Father. With this in mind there was only one thing Jesus could do. It’s one of the ten commandments, “Honor Your Mother And Father.” So what did He do, “And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them;….” And because of His obedience to His parents, “….Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in FAVOR with God and men. All things young people do to find favor will be achieved by simply obeying their parents. And because Jesus obeyed His parents He did not become king for a life time. He became King for all of time.

    God Bless!!!


  14. April 6, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    LaDonna & GB,

    Take a peek at Mormon Doctrine pg. 746. Pretty clearly lays out that those former mormons who had a testimony of the LDS gospel will be considered part of the sons of perdition.

    Also, if you read the book of mormon, what happened to the skin of those that “fell away”…… they became “blackened” 2 Nephi 5:21. The book of Mormon clearly teaches that “white” is delightsome and that equates personal “righteousness”. Thus, the cursing of the “black sin” . The book of mormon clearly teaches that.

    Therefore those that “fall away” from the LDS gospel are cursed with a skin of darkness. That is clearly what the BofM, the most correct of all books , according to the LDS Church, teaches.

    I recall vividly being inside an LDS temple and the temple sealer telling me my beautiful adopted children would become “white”.

    Thank God that the Lord is no respector of persons. Romans 2:11, Col 3:25, 2 Chr 19:7,
    Ladonna, as far as being a “faithful” LDS, ( temple endowed, RM, married in the temple, 10 kids, teaching in RS, etc.) You said I lost something along the way…. well yes I did, I lost the false teachings and I embraced the good news of Jesus Christ! I actually picked up my bible to study and read , because it was the NT we were studying that year, and lo and behold, The Holy Spirit opened my eyes, my scales were “loosed” and I was healed of my blindess! I was able to see Jesus is the only WAY and means to heaven. So you are right , I did “lose” something…. my scales! I was blind, but now I can see… was lost but now I am found! Amazing grace, my chains are gone!
    Praising Him!

  15. April 6, 2009 at 11:17 pm


    I also forgot to mention, in the temple endowment satan/lucifer ( portayed by Michael Balam and I am not sure the name of the other actor in the other film version) looks right in the screen and tells those watching the film that “if these people in this temple this day do not live up to these covenants made here, they will be in my power”.

    The temple endowment of the LDS church clearly teaches that those who walk away from the Temple and their temple covenants will be in his power.

    Is that not so?

    If so, how do you explain how those who do leave the LDS and are born again believers do expierence blessings and even gifts of the Holy Spirit?

    That is the quandry for my husband. He recognizes the spiritual blessings that have been poured down upon his ‘apostate’ wife and simply can not explain it.

    Any one want to take a jab at that?

  16. 16 markcares
    April 6, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    Could you please give me a reference from an official LDS source that links obedience in the pre-existence with resurrection. Thanks.

  17. 17 ladonnamorrell
    April 7, 2009 at 1:35 am


    I don’t believe that it says ANYWHERE that you will be cursed with darkness immediately. That would be a pretty amazing sign that you were on the wrong path. Father in Heaven does not work that way. I would be willing to bet, if I were to see you face to face, I would see the “darkness” in your countenance. I hear the “tone” with which you speak about the LDS church and that tells me that you are indeed an apostate. Apostates can not just walk away, they have to make “jabs” at the people, the church and even sink low enough to talk openly about sacred temple information. If you were a “depressed, exhausted” wife that tells me that you were not living the fulness of the gospel. The Gospel refines, uplifts and blesses people. That is not to say that people do not have troubles, I know they do, but they overcome them by faith and obedience.
    I hope your husband can hold tight and not jump ship because you are having a grand time being a “free as a bird” born again, giddy school girl. You have traded eternal life for a cheap substitute. No offense to any of the EV readers. You simply would not understand the betrayal and damage that apostates can do, especially within their own families. (dragging little children through the mud) Not many people are honest with them. Most just smile and look the other way when they meet them in Wal-mart, not wanting to appear mean.
    Actually, apostates only damage themselves. The Kingdom of God was cut out of the mountain without hands and will roll forward and nothing will stop it.

    Your temporary “blessings” will vanish like ice in the sun when you cross that veil.


  18. April 7, 2009 at 2:55 am

    “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

    You apparently left out the LAW of Mercy Mark.

  19. 19 Stephanie
    April 7, 2009 at 4:38 am

    Don’t be intimidated by LaDonna. I know it must be scary to leave the LDS church, precisely because of LaDonna’s wicked and bullying condemnation of you. To be told that you are an apostate is terrifying. Don’t let those lies frighten you! Indeed, you have a strong testimony about your conversion. I will pray for you.

    As far as all the talk about blessing and obedience… God is not a mathematical equation. The talk on this post makes God sound like a calculator. Two people can obey in the same area of life, perfectly, and receive two different outcomes. No one can predict God. We know God is good, and just, but God is also mysterious. His ways are higher than our ways.

    I think this is why the LDS promote leadership in their wards according to earthly successes. If someone has much success here on earth, he must be a very obedient person and he must have really pleased Heavenly Father in the pre-existence. To receive blessings on earth equates with obedience to God’s law, thus successful people are promoted. But what does the Bible say? Luke 13:30 and Mark 10:31 both say, “But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.”

    Also, Christ’s sermon on the mount, specifically the beatitudes, states, Matthew 5:11-12 “Blessed are ye, when men persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, be exceedingly glad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.”

  20. 20 germit
    April 7, 2009 at 4:40 am

    Seth: do you want to weigh in on my question, does the quote from the D & C Mark gave stand at face value….is all blessing tied in , even if only in part, to OBEDIENCE ??

    I’ll give this till tomorrow.


    thanks LaddonnaM for the response

  21. April 7, 2009 at 4:41 am

    Hello, Ladonna.

    I am sure you are a really nice person who is doing the best they can in life with what is on your plate. I refuse to cast stones at you Ladonna. I am sorry you feel the need to do so at me personally.

    My remarks were based on Mormon doctrines and teachings.

    You became upset because I simply stated the facts. The LDS do not like the “meat” of their doctrines being uncovered. I never once attacked you as a person Ladonna, but yet you felt the need to do so.

    I also did not receive a response to you about “how” an apostate like me can actually experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit when I am a so called “child of perdition”?

    I have asked you this several times and have yet to receive a courteous reply.

    Ladonna, do you not agree then that all blessings are predicated upon obedience? If you do, then how do you explain how non LDS receive blessings, if they are not obedient to the LDS gospel?

    I will pray for you , Ladonna. I will pray that your heart will soften and that you will not feel the desire to attack people personally but examine the doctrines and focus on the facts instead of making personal attacks. The fruits of the Spirit are kindness, love, peace, joy, etc. A true believer is known by their fruits.

    It is my prayer Ladonna that you & other LDS may come to partake of living waters and living bread.

    I love my LDS husband and fortunately he doesn’t speak to me like you do or treat me the way you do. He is loving for the most part and a litte perplexed about how his “apostate” wife can experience the gifts of the Spirit and display the fruits of the Spirit.

    Finally, my “blessings” thanks to the good Lord and what He has done will not vanish, my friend. He is preparing a mansion for me as I type…… the blessed assurance that I will live eternally with God is not something that anyone can take away, not even you and your harsh words.

    May God bless you & open your eyes to see Jesus,


  22. April 7, 2009 at 4:44 am

    Thank you for your kind remarks and for your encouragement. I am not easily intimidated. :) If I was , I couldn’t have left the LDS. :)
    I will pray for Ladonna, and for the Lord to move her heart. Jesus is so wonderful & beautiful…….it is my heart’s desire to see my LDS friends and loved ones come to know that and taste of His goodness, for He is good!
    Thanks for your remarks,
    < John 3:16

  23. April 7, 2009 at 5:00 am

    Personally, I think you’re just being melodramatic gloria.

    A lot of ex-Mormons like to call themselves Sons of Perdition for pure shock value, but it shows a pretty one-sided view of Mormon doctrine. Also a kind of juvenile in-your-face attitude toward their former Mormon acquaintances. Like the teenager who shows up at the family reunion with a nose ring solely for the purpose of pissing off Aunt Marge.

    The fact that you’re getting your source material from McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine” is pretty telling. McConkie had a lot of opinions about things, but that’s all a lot of them were. I don’t really think his views on the population stats of “Outer Darkness” need to be binding on anyone. But that said, I’ve read his passages referencing Sons of Perdition and Outer Darkness, and let me just say – you totally botched it in the accuracy department.

    McConkie never said that just being a baptized Mormon and leaving was enough to ensure a place in Outer Darkness. Sounds like something you made up out of your own overblown sense of self-importance, or cribbed off a thread full of bitter 13 year olds whining over on exmormon.org (honestly, half the commenters there really do sound about 13 years old – they certainly spell like it).

    Your crack about skin color changing is just plain stupid and not really worth a response unless you can come up with something remotely supporting it.

  24. 24 germit
    April 7, 2009 at 5:08 am

    You apparently left out the LAW of Mercy Mark.

    Seth: can we know something of GOD’s mercy that has no connection to our obedience ???

  25. April 7, 2009 at 5:22 am

    Hello, seth. Thanks for taking time to write a response to my comments left here on this site.

    My remarks about McConkie are from Mormon Doctrine, and I am sure you know Seth, that Bruce R. McConkie was an apostle of the LDS church. The LDS church views apostles as “prophets, seers and revelators” and that they speak for the Lord. Are you telling me Seth that Mr. McConkie was wrong? Are you saying that he erred on his thoughts/teachings about apostates who leave the LDS fold? Please clarify. Thanks so much.

    As for the “crack” about skin color, I really don’t think it’s funny, Seth.

    I have adopted children of color. They are very dark. They are beautiful in my eyes, but according to the LDS teachings and prior leaders, their skin is “Cursed”. Seth, that is not funny and something to make a “pun” about. I take that very seriously.

    I don’t think it is a “crack” that a temple sealer told me and my husban that my children’s skin would get whiter, or when we would bring them to church LDS would ask if their skin was whitening. Do you think that’s funny or a “crack” seth? I assume you are white?

    The fact is, Seth the LDS teachings have been racist and for generations LDS leaders taught that skin color denotes personal righteousness. Is it not true that the blacks were not allowed to hold the LDS priesthood or have their families sealed because of their skin color?

    I will not engage in the “sling throwing” that the LDS readers here seem intent on throwing at me.

    No, instead I will pray for you all and turn the other cheek.

    That is something I can do, and something the Lord would want me to do.

    God bless,

    You say I am melodramtic. Again, I am saddened to see the LDS commentators on this site feel the need to be critical of people instead of being focused on the facts.

  26. April 7, 2009 at 5:27 am



    As a mormon missionary I was taught to teach investigators what the fruits of the spirit are:

    Love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, goodness, faith. Galatians 5:22-23

    Ye shall know them by their fruits. I am seeing fruits here.

    Is calling someone “stupid” or what they say “stupid” constitute anything stated above?

    Something to chew on, Seth. I will pray for you.

    God bless,


  27. April 7, 2009 at 5:30 am

    Are you also the one that left a few comments on my blog last week? Those comments were courteous , so maybe you are a different seth than the one who posted at my blog?
    Just curious,

  28. April 7, 2009 at 7:49 am

    Gloria, sometimes you get me on a grumpy day, sometimes not. I’m not particularly consistent that way. Nor do I claim to be demonstrating the fruits of the spirit. I’m pretty sure I’m not right now. But yes, I am the same guy. Hopefully someday I’ll learn to be less impulsive in my commenting practices. Today I let irritation get the better of me.

    To answer your questions more productively:

    1. I do disagree with McConkie on the subject of perdition. What apostles choose to write privately in their spare time will certainly have persuasive value with me – but that doesn’t make it doctrine. I only accept McConkie’s writings as doctrinal to the extent that they accord with scripture and other accepted sources of official Church doctrine. The same goes for Kimball’s “Miracle of Forgiveness.”

    2. I still don’t know where your race comments came from and am puzzled as to what you were trying to argue there. The Book of Mormon gives no indication that dark skin was ever supposed to be a curse beyond the limited context of that time and culture. Since the book later makes it repeatedly clear that the Lamanites are often morally superior to the Nephites, I’m just not sure where you’re getting your argument from.

    3. As to why you are seeing a greater outpouring of spiritual gifts outside the LDS Church than inside it – I would say that it’s probably because the Lord led you out of the Church. You’re obviously happier out of the Mormon culture than you were in it, right? Seems like the logical conclusion to me.

    But no, that does not prove to me that the LDS Church is false as you claim. It just means it was the wrong place for you to be spiritually. That’s my opinion on it anyway.

  29. April 7, 2009 at 7:58 am

    My own pet theory is that the dark skin = curse passages in the Book of Mormon are simply Nephi’s own personal conclusions. Under the Mosaic Law, you weren’t supposed to intermarry with non-Israelites.

    My guess is that Lehi’s expedition encountered dark-skinned people already living in the area when they landed in the New World. After the split between brothers, Laman and Lemuel probably started intermarrying with the local populations. Nephi, as a devout observer of the Mosaic Law would have disapproved of this, and when the children turned dark skinned (for purely genetic reasons), he took it as a sign of God’s displeasure with his wicked brothers and wrote as much on the plates.

    But it seems likely that the Nephites also started intermarrying later on as well. By the time of Book of Mosiah, it seems that the Nephites were indistinguishable from the Lamanites in skin color. Why else would Amulek have had to explain to everyone present that he was of the lineage of Nephi?

    If Nephites were still white-skinned, wouldn’t it have been immediately obvious to the audience whether he was or not? The fact that he had to tell the audience indicates to me that skin color-wise, Amulek looked almost exactly like any Lamanite. Indeed, after Nephi, you don’t get much talk of curses anymore throughout the rest of the book. Why? Because everyone looked the same and the curse was no longer associated with skin color.

    Not saying the Book of Mormon text demands that read. But that’s what I’m taking away from it.

  30. April 7, 2009 at 1:14 pm


    The Book of Mormon gives no indication that dark skin was ever supposed to be a curse beyond the limited context of that time and culture.

    then why in the world was priesthood withheld from 99.99994% of all blacks in the country (OK, I’m making up that percentage, but you catch the drift…..yeah, I know about the two or three lucky brothers who somehow got in….) what was up with that if the curse was not still in effect ??? and this seems to be Seth’s view of things (which I’ll accept for NOW, in reg. to Seth ) rather than what LDS clearly taught for many years.

    the elephant is dancing thru the room here….


  31. 31 Brad
    April 7, 2009 at 1:45 pm


    It’s always exciting to see a former Mormon post their story of how they were able to leave the LDS church, the “scales” having fallen from their eyes. It’s also encouraging to see how your conversion is having an effect, even if small right now, on your husband. I pray he will continue to look into these things that perplex him, and pray he too will come to truly know Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

    As I’m sure you’ve guessed by now, conversation with Ladonna becomes difficult, as her arguments inevitably steer themselves more towards personal attacks, rather than staying on topic. Don’t worry, though – you’re not the only one she does it to. It’s mostly anyone who dares challenge the Mormon way. However, I’m sure you’re used to criticism, so I’m sure you handle it well. Best thing to do is ignore it.

  32. April 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm

    Racism has a rather interesting history in the LDS Church. Joseph Smith himself was opposed to slavery as a general matter. Under duress and threat from the mobs, he occasionally said some conciliatory remarks critics have made hay out of, but by and large it seems clear he opposed the practice. Half the reason for the violence that occurred in Missouri against the Mormons were because the locals were alarmed by the arrival of a large unified anti-slavery voting bloc (the Mormons). A lot of the reason we were killed in Missouri was because we were anti-slavery. Joseph also had a bold plan to purchase the freedom of every slave with sales of Louisiana Purchase land as part of his failed US Presidential platform. Joseph himself ordained a black man to the Melchizedek Priesthood – Elijah Abel (Bro. Abel also had his temple ordinances done).

    Then Joseph died and Mormonism headed west under the leadership of Brigham Young. The new territory in present-day Utah had immediate problems in gaining statehood and had to walk a tightrope balancing act between a US Congress bitterly divided over racism (we’re still pre-Civil War, remember). We don’t know the reason, but Brigham Young addressed Territorial Legislature, and made remarks to the effect that blacks were not to receive full privileges in the LDS Church.

    I’d like to emphasize where this “doctrine” started out. Not in a revelation. Not in scripture. Not even from the pulpit – any religious pulpit. But rather at a political event. It was never accepted as binding by the membership of the Church. My own view is that it never was the will of the Lord for his Restored Gospel. I do not accept it as such. It has every hallmark of being Young’s opinion – but since he was Territorial Governor in addition to Prophet, his opinions tended to matter. Blacks were excluded.

    After the policy went into effect in the Church, various local leaders, and even apostles started fishing around for reasons for it. What they found, were the popular theories being promoted by Pro-slavery PROTESTANT ministers and leaders – Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham. These were originally American Protestant theories and were quite popular during the abolition controversy, and during Segregation in the deep South. Protestants today tend to be pretty hush-hush about this little tidbit and seem content to let Mormons be the whipping boy for American religious racism, but originally it was the Mormons who borrowed the racist doctrines from their Protestant neighbors. We often seem to get the short end of the stick when we borrow from American Protestantism for some reason…

    Anyway, although the ban itself was not revelation, it became heavily entrenched in isolated and ethnically homogeneous Utah. Additional folklore was added from incorrectly reading Mormon scriptures. Ultimately the practice was abandoned when LDS proselyting efforts in Brazil (and other such ethnically mixed areas) were hampered by LDS policies. It has almost zero to do – as our critics have alleged – with the American Civil Rights Movement (which was pretty-much over by 1978 when the ban was lifted).

    Bruce R. McConkie himself, one of the most outspoken supporters of such doctrines as the Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham stood up in General Conference following the revelation on the Priesthood and instructed the membership to “forget everything I said” regarding the matter and to instead follow the new light and knowledge we had been given.

    So there’s your summary.

  33. April 7, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Hi, brad. Thanks for your encouraging words.
    The Lord has done an amazing work in my heart, mind and life. I give all the credit to King Jesus! It was thru reading the Bible that my eyes were opened! I began to read it cover to cover and by the time I was done, I was convinced that it is by grace , the grace of our Lord and His precious blood that we are redeemed, justified, and sanctified. Only thru the Lamb.
    Thanks again for your kind note,

  34. April 7, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    Hi, seth. Thanks for taking time to respond to my remarks about the teachings of race and color by LDS leaders. If I get what you are writing and sharing then you don’t believe that LDS apostles and leaders are correct and that they can err then? So basically Mr.McConkie was ‘wrong’ all those years he was so vocal about skin color? If that is correct, then what LDS leaders teach today as “god’s word” can years from now be concerned erred?
    I really believe this issue about race is “huge” because it prohibited LDS people of color from receiving what the LDS church claims the “saving ordinances” of the priesthood. That is, people of color were being “kept out” of the celestial kingdom because of their color, correct? Without the temple ordinances, the LDS teach there is no eternal life ( = exaltation in the kingdom of the god) .

    Your comments and responses really made me realize how very important it is to put our trust in the ROCK. That is one of the reasons I left the LDS church, because I realized I needed to place my trust, my all in Jesus, not in man or what man believes, but on the Son of God. I can completely trust King Jesus with my life, and my eternity. Man, on the other hand can change , can lead one astray, but Jesus won’t. That is why I chose to surrender completely too Him.

    As I have told my LDS husband, my eternity rests in the work of Christ Jesus the Lord… not o the works and teachings of Joseph Smith or other LDS leaders. I will place all the chips on the cross…..and there is such peace and security in that.

    Kind regards,

  35. 35 markcares
    April 7, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    Thanks for your comments – both their content and tone. I rejoice with you in knowing that Jesus has paid for all our sins. As we again observe his death and resurrection, may you marvel anew at his tremendous love for us.

  36. April 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm

    You are correct – the “Lord did lead me out of the LDS faith/church” and you are correct by saying that was not the correct or best place for me to be spiritually. Thank you for recognizing that and for stating that. The best place for me to be spiritually is in the arms of our Lord, and King — Jesus. It’s the best place for any of us to be, Seth. There is safety and security there.

    I am praying for you, and for other LDS to realize the same thing.

    Kind regards,

  37. April 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    Thanks, mark for your encouraging note. This is my first attempt of entering the “online” community to witness to the LDS. ( I just started a blog too to witness, so it’s all new to me) So I am a bit new to all this and just praying that God will guide my words, my heart and my “typing”. :)

    Jesus is everything — my heart yearns for the LDS to know of Him and taste of His goodness.

    God bless you in what you are trying to do here,

  38. April 7, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    “I really believe this issue about race is “huge” because it prohibited LDS people of color from receiving what the LDS church claims the “saving ordinances” of the priesthood.”

    I agree actually. It is fortunate indeed that we are able to correct these errors today in the temple.

    I do believe that some things Church leaders currently preach will fall by the wayside at some point. But not the essentials of Mormon belief. Teachings about race were never a core essential to the Restored Gospel. Likewise with many social issues and policy issues in the Church.

  39. 39 GERMIT
    April 7, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    I agree actually. It is fortunate indeed that we are able to correct these errors today in the temple.



    Seth: any take on my question about “blessings and obedience” ??

  40. April 7, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    I think it’s a positive that the LDS church now recognizes the black people and people really of all color. God sure loves them too. He truly is no respector of persons. I personally believe these men were certainly not inspired and were not speaking for God. I am thankful to know that He loves the color of my children’s skin — He created them with that beautiful chocolate brown color that I love so. They are truly beautiful. I am so glad He created variety in skin color. I think most LDS people today think the same way you do. They do not agree with their prior leaders and what they taught and they too recognize their errors. I have met a few racist LDS, but that can be said that there is going to be racism I suspect in all denominations, not just the LDS.

    I also agree that many LDS teachings that are currently taught today will most likely be dropped in time to come. This has certainly happened historically over the years, many of the LDS teachings of the prior 100 yrs are no longer embraced or viewed as ‘doctrine’ although they were at one point. ( I am thinking of the doctrine of plural marriage, and the changes in the temple endowment ceremony)

    One of the last Women’s conferences I attended before resigning from the LDS, was a conference where Pres. Monson stated that all women should obtain and education and he challenged women to become enrolled in some sort of college training of sorts. I was so shocked by this, because I had been taught that my role was to be at “home” as a “mother in zion”. I came home a bit confused and shared with my husband and he himself didn’t believe me so he had to read it for himself a few days later when it was published online at lds.org. Then a week later, we heard from the R.S. president who gave her now famous “women who know” talk, that created quite a stir within the LDS women. ( she was advocating staying home, the traditional LDS homemaker role,etc) . I recall feeling quite a confusion between Monson’s talk and hers…… the messages contradicted each other. Monson was saying “get an education and skills, enroll now if you are not” and the R.S. pres was saying “stay home “. As a stay at home mom and dedicated LDS homemaker, I really was in a quandry and pulled in 2 different directions.

    It was shortly after these talks were given that I resigned from the LDS. I realized how very confusing the LDS gospel is, and how impossible the feat is to be able to keep up with all the changing doctrines. God’s word endures forever and He does not change. I am so thankful for that anchor in my life, that I don’t have to worry about Him pulling the “rug out from under my feet” sort of speak.

    I realized how very confusing for the LDS it is to have one counsel given and then a few years later something different given. At least it was for me.

    Thanks again for sharing your perspective and for the courteous exchange.

    Kind regards,

  41. 41 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm


    D&C 130: 20-21 “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

    That is clear. I don’t understand why you “need” an answer to your question when the text is so clear.

  42. 42 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Mark: Could you please give me a reference from an official LDS source that links obedience in the pre-existence with resurrection. Thanks.

    GB: Abraham 3:22-28, Jude 1:6, Rev 12:4,7-9, D&C 76:25-28, 2 Ne 2:17-18, D&C 29:36, and Moses 4:1-4 to start with.

  43. April 7, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    I just want to point out a few things on the race issue. While racism was typically not as institutionalized in evangelical Christianity as it was in Mormonism, it was still very much there and even our most beloved leaders fell prey to its prejudices. For example:

    Even beloved Billy Graham (1918- ) opposed discrimination slowly. Graham was never happy with race relations in his native South, and he angered many erstwhile friends in the summer of 1957 by inviting Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-68) to pray at his highly publicized crusade in New York City. But he did not desegregate his crusades for good until 1954, after the U.S. Supreme Court declared the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education. He seemed to symbolize to promoters of African American civil rights the “white moderate” approach to racial discrimination, an approach that King himself condemned in April of 1963 in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail”:

    I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

    Sadly, King was right. The history of evangelicalism is full of white moderate stumbling blocks, spiritual obstacles that reinforced the color line. (Douglas Sweeney, The American Evangelical Story, p. 112-113)

    We may not officially force blacks to sit in different sections of the congregation or bar them from becoming ordained ministers anymore, but there’s a reason they got up and left our churches to form their own denominations, all of which are still around today and where most of them attend church today. I don’t think we have as much accountability on this issue as Mormons do since we don’t believe our leaders have a batphone to God, but we’re certainly not on much higher ground. When it comes to race, evangelicalism is still a house divided, and we have little right to cast stones at Mormons.

  44. 44 markcares
    April 7, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    I am confused by the references you gave. They all talk about coming to earth. Where do any of them refer to the resurrection?

  45. 45 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 5:44 pm


    They don’t directly refer to resurrection but to coming to earth (being born). I wasn’t aware that you needed a link between being born on earth and being resurrected. Here it is 1 Cor 15:21-22.

  46. 46 faithoffathers
    April 7, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    On the race issue:

    I wouldn’t call the prohibition against the blacks an error. The Lord made that provision. We may not understand it, but it came from Him.

    Statements from leaders going back to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young all indicate that the blessings would one day be extended to all of God’s children. I absolutely refute any claim that the LDS leaders tried to keep black members out of the temple, etc. Reading their journals and statements, it is clear where they stood. They plead with the Lord for decades on the topic before the revelation in 1978.

    There is a clear Biblical precident for such prohibitions. Only Israelites from the tribe of Levi could officiate in the temple ordinances. The gospel was initially not taught to those other than Israel. It was after a period of time that the Lord gave the commission to the apostles to teach the gospel to those other than the blood of Israel.

    We should be honest and consistent. If a person claims the LDS church is/was racist based solely on this period of prohibition, he or she must also be willing to call the God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ a racist.

    Gloria- encouragement to obtain education is not the same as encouragement to go get a job.

    The book Mormon Doctrine is a favorite of LDS critics. Did you know that the first presidency was quite critical of many of Elder McConkie’s claims in the first editions and asked him to makes several changes, which he did?


  47. 47 GERMIT
    April 7, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    FoF: God bless you , friend, but you are running headlong into a ditch, and the ditch is called “does not yet understand the NEW COVENANT.

    Galations 3:26-29
    For you are all sons of GOD through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave not free man; there is neither male nor female; for you are ALL ONE ine CHRIST JESUS. And if you belong to CHRIST, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

    to state the obvious: your prophets were a little late to this party: the SLAVES (while they were STILL slaves, I might add) were given FULL STATUS in GOD’s eyes, LONG before 1978. Yes, many churches , including christian ones , did a terrible job understanding this (and have repented of that openly and out loud: RACISM), but there it is in black and white. God didn ‘t stutter on this one. HE didn’t shut out ANYONE based on skin color or gender to the NEW COVENANT. Worse than this open racism is a faillure to admit it and find healing. That’s a sad tale.

    Healing on you and yours

  48. 48 GERMIT
    April 7, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    GB: you wrote

    That is clear. I don’t understand why you “need” an answer to your question when the text is so clear.

    Well, I’d rather ask and make sure, than assume. So it’s looking like no such thing as blessing without some kind of obedience attached to it. MARK: you’ve done a good job of drawing this out, normally “works” type discussions produce much more heat than light, but I would call this a real, and very important distinction between ev.’s and LDS (if it holds true for the group at large, which is an “if”)

    More on this later, but it’s apparant to me that we understan GOD’s ability and willingness to bless in two different ways.


  49. 49 markcares
    April 7, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    I don’t need a link to being born and being resurrected. I need a link between obedience and being resurrected. A link you have not yet provided.

  50. 50 markcares
    April 7, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    How des a person obey the law of mercy? How did Hilter obey the law of mercy so that he could be resurrected?

  51. April 7, 2009 at 6:38 pm


    I disagree. I think the ban on blacks in the priesthood was purely a product of Brigham Young’s own mind. And while some of the LDS leadership were praying for change, not all of them were. Certainly for the first 50 years after Brigham’s non-doctrinal pronouncement to the territorial legislature, the large majority of LDS leadership and membership were not terribly bothered by the fact that blacks were denied entrance to the temple.

  52. April 7, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Hello Faith of Fathers,
    Thanks for your remarks. I appreciate the chance to have a courteous exchange. :)
    You commented that “if” someone is to say that the LDS church’s doctrines have been racist or the leaders have been in the past, then one would have to say that the OT God has been as well as Jesus. I think we are talking about 2 different issues.

    The issue of race vs. the issue of being part of the family of God.

    The Jews would and have always allowed “gentiles” to convert to Judaism and become part of the House of Israel. A good example of that is from the book of Ruth. Ruth, was from Moab, and she was most definatley not a Jew. Yet, she accepted the God of Naomi and “the God of Naomi became her God”. I so love that story of Ruth. I especially love it in light of the fact that Ruth became the grandmother of David and in turn part of the lineage of Jesse, and of our Lord and Messiah.

    Not only did God’s promises extend to the seed of Abraham & Jacob ( Israel) but truly He also arranges salvation for the gentiles as well. Ruth’s story is a beautiful one, is it not? Thru Ruth came the lineage of David and the Messiah. Thru the union of a Jew and a Gentile, would ultimately come the Savior of all men! Wow, God is great!

    I also love the story of Nebuchadnezzer — he too came to know and understand that the God of Daniel is the ONE true God! After 7 yrs of “madness” Nebuchadnezzar rraised the Most High and honored and glorified Him! Daniel 4:34-37

    Rahab, is another beautiful example of how God uses the “gentile” to bring upon His purposes. Rahab was a prostitute, and yet she saved God’s servants and later her and her household were saved, and she later married an Israelite from the tribe of Judah. More importantly she is also an ancestor in the lineage of Jesus. 2 Gentile women in the lineage of our Lord!

    There has always been provisions for people of any color, race to accept the one true God and worship Him.

    The second issue is one of “race”. The Lord God truly is no respector of persons. Col 3:25,2 Chron. 19:7, Romans 2:11
    Even in the Old Testament, God did not deny any person because of their skin color. Moses himself, a servant of God, was married to an Ethiopian woman. We do not have record if Zipporah had died at the time of this union or not. God’s servant married a woman of color.
    God does not value one calls of humanity as inherently superior to another. Why should we?

    So you see, God did not prohibit non Jews from accessing the throne of grace and being adopted into the household of God. What a wonderful God!

    In the New Testament, we can read about some wonderful people of color. 3 gospels tell us about a man who was selected to carry the cross of our Lord — Simon a “cyrene”. Cyrene is a North African city, it has been found by the greeks in the early seventh century. In it’s “hey day” it was one of the biggest cities in Africa. A large colony of Jews had settled in Cyrene, so we don’t know if Simon was a Jew, or North African. He was present in Jerusalem during the feast of the passover, so he very well could have been a Jew. The bible does not clearly express if he was or not.

    Then there the black men mentioned in Acts 13.

    ” Now there were in the church that was at antioch certain prophets and teachers. As barnabas, and Simeon that was called “Niger”, ( the black) and Lucius from Cyrene”…… Acts 13:1
    Both Simeon and Lucius were from North Africa. They were also prophets and teachers. Many scholars believe this “simeon” was the same who carried the cross of our Lord. Mark mentions Simeon’s the African’s 2 sons : Rufus & Alexander. Simeon is another name for “simon” and niger is Latin for “black”. Thus, we see early leaders in the Christian church were indeed men of color.

    Then there is the story of Philip and the Ethiopian officer. Phillip sat with him in the chariot and the man was preached the good news. When the Ethiopian expressed his belief in Jesus, he was then baptized. Interestingly enough, Ethiopia has traditionally been a Christian nation, where her African neighbors are predominately muslim.

    So we see that neither Jesus, the Messiah of the NT or the I AM of the OT is a respector of persons. The Bible clearly shows and tells us that God has always allowed people of all races to come to know Him as the one true God.

    As the prophet Samuel wrote: ” Men looketh on the outward appearance but the Lord looketh on the heart”. 1 Samuel 16:7

    The LDS doctrines and leaders restricted what they believed was “salvation” ( the temple ordinances) to those people of color. This is not what the Bible teaches and has revealed. God has always extended eternal life to ALL men and women regardless of their race. Clearly we can see that thru scripture.

    ” We are neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian , bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all” ~~ Col. 3:11

    Sincere Regards,

  53. April 7, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    I agree. Christians have certainly had their problems with race & racism!! Oh my all one has to do is look at all the so called “christian men” who were involved in the KKK.
    Racism has been a problem that has plagued many churches and denominations.

    With that said, because Christians have had problems with race does not mean God has. The Bible is clear, God is no respector of persons.

    I have often wondered if Jesus was a colored man — at least olive skinned. :)

    God bless,

  54. 54 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 7:21 pm


    Is the fact that you don’t see the word “resurrection” in those verses the problem?

    Abr 3:26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; . . .

    Part of that “added upon” is resurrection.

  55. 55 faithoffathers
    April 7, 2009 at 7:32 pm


    Thank you for the thoughtful examples of God’s love.

    I do not disagree with any of them. The question to me is- are there examples when certain blessings were excluded from a group of people based on lineage. The answer is yes as seen in the examples I alluded to above. The priesthood has clearly been given to only certain groups in the past- this is beyond argument. It was based on lineage.

    I fully believe we are of the same worth to God. He desires to extend all blessings to all of His children. But I do not claim to understand everything He does. And the good thing is, I am not required to understand the context and why behind everything He does.


    What do more recent prophets say about it? To my knowledge, they have always claimed that revelation/inspiration was sought long and hard to extend all blessings to the black members. It doesn’t matter if there were members who didn’t want others to have the priesthood. There are statements that go all the way back from many prophets (presidents) on the topic. Joseph Smith’s run for the presidency included a proposal to purchase the slaves to free them. Sure, there have been people in and out of the church who have racist feelings. But I do not believe the policy on the priesthood can be explained by that reality. None of the leaders have ever intimated that what you are saying is correct.


  56. 56 GERMIT
    April 7, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    Seth , very honestly, wrote:

    the large majority of LDS leadership and membership were not terribly bothered by the fact that blacks were denied entrance to the temple

    and in fairness, the all white churches across the South and into many other parts of the US were not at all concerned about the plight of the “Negro” throughout the 1800’s and well into the 1900’s till GOD shook things up using humble men and women like Rosa parks, MLK, and John Perkins. the LDS stance was just more of the (racist) same.

    lean on the OT and the Levitical priesthood all you want , Mr.F, but the plain fact is there are , and were, NO such disclaimers to the new covenant. In fact just the opposite: the GOOD NEWS is that even WOMEN and SLAVES get to come to this party with FULL STATUS. That’s why Paul could count the slave Onesimus as fully a brother, and admonish Philemon to “accept him (a slave) as you would me (Paul).” WOW: now THAT is really good news !!

    We can agree that GOD does as HE pleases: if HE wanted only the LEVITES to hold (temporarily) the priesthood, then I won’t argue, but if HE wants to open up the spigot of BLESSINGS to ALL people irrespective of gender or race…… FoF: you are on the wrong side with this….


  57. 57 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 7:58 pm


    As far as I know the “Why” has not been revealed. We might all have an opinion about what the “why” is but it is only opinion.

    As for mine, I am with FoF on this one.

  58. 58 GERMIT
    April 7, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    None of the leaders have ever intimated that what you are saying is correct

    FoF: this caught my eye…..are you saying that even Brigham did not believe and teach that dark skin was due to a curse…..and hence no priesthood ?? you have me puzzled.


  59. 59 GERMIT
    April 7, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    I have often wondered if Jesus was a colored man — at least olive skinned. :)

    HE was ABSOLUTELY NOT of the “favored race” what an irony that is…… maybe HE just didn’t plan ahead…. :-)


  60. April 7, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    Hello Faith of Fathers,
    You are correct the levitical priesthood was stictly held by those of lineage of Aaron. That is true. But under the new covenant, He has made the first old. Hebrews 8:13 That is because of Jesus, we can all come “boldly before the throne of grace”. Not just a levitical priest, offering up yearly sacrifice in the holy of holies. As believers, we have access to the “holy of holies”. We do not require a levitcal priest anymore — for Jesus is our great high priest and has offered up the final sin offering.

    I also want to point out that even though the levitical priesthood was only given to males of the family of Aaron, “salvation” and “eternal life” was not exempt from women or children or gentiles who had been converted, and it was not excluded from people of other races other that ‘white’.

    What I was addressing was the fact that the LDS church taught that those of color, specifically the black people/race were not allowed to receive what the LDS call “eternal life”. That is not what the bible teaches. That is the point I was making.

    It is absolutely true that many Christian churches have struggled with racism. No doubt about it. Many christians have had wrong attitudes about people of color, and many I am sure struggle with this today, But I have yet to have read anywhere in the Bible that God has said black people can not inherit eternal life. That is the point I am focusing on.

    Kind regards,

  61. 61 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    {“salvation” and “eternal life” was not exempt from women or children or gentiles who had been converted, and it was not excluded from people of other races other that ‘white’.}

    Sorry, but at no time have “salvation” and “eternal life” been exempt from “races other that ‘white’”!!

    Just because someone may have had certain blessing deferred, doesn’t mean those blessings will be denied.

  62. April 7, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    GB, we have to be careful here because I don’t think your view was always shared by past apostles.

  63. April 7, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Hello, GB.

    I would greatly appreciate if you could cite or share references from LDS leaders or the standard works of the LDS faith to support your claim that at no time have eternal life and salvation been denied to those of the black race. Do you mean that they have been “deferred” but not denied?

    I guess I’m confused then – because I always was taught that without the sealing and endowmenet and ordinances of the LDS temple an LDS member could most certainly not receive exaltation and eternal life in the celestial kingdom. Black membrs of the LDS faith were denied access to the temple ordinances, and as a result they could not receive eternal life. ( which equates to exalatation in LDS terms, correct?)

    So are you saying that these ordinances are not necessary then for those of color? That they will not be therefore denied access to the highest level of th celestial kingdom?

    Please clarify yourself.

    Thanks so much,

  64. April 7, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    I agree. I think past/prior LDS leaders ( and I am talking about members of the twelve and first presidency) did not say that exaltation would be “deferred” at some later time to the blacks. I know “now” in the present LDS church they are extended but wasn’t it taught for years that black people would not be able to receive their exaltation?
    Perhaps I am wrong.
    Please clarify.

  65. 65 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 9:59 pm


    The more you post the more I doubt that you are what you claim to be.

    What do think temple work for the dead is all about, but providing blessings to the dead that were unavailable to them (for whatever reason) when they were alive?

    Were you ever a knowledgeable member of the church?

  66. 66 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    What do YOU think temple work for the dead is all about, but providing blessings to the dead that were unavailable to them (for whatever reason) when they were alive?

    There, fixed it.

  67. April 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm

    Hello, GB.

    Thanks for taking time to respond.

    You seem to “question” who I am? “Who” do you think I am? I am not sure why you come out with personal attacks instead of focusing on the facts. I refuse to return a stone back, GB. I am sure you are a nice guy whose just frustrated that this prior mormon, who is challenging what you are claiming here.

    I simply asked, and I hope I asked kindly and respectfully what proof texts do you have that support your claim that those who are of black skin during the period of the priesthood ban would receive eternal life and exaltation? I am simply asking for references to your claims.

    I ask you again for those references.

    Sincerely speaking, I was told that black people would not become exalted. That of course has been changed, since the ban has been lifted. But I am speaking about prior to that period. Was it not taught that LDS members of black lineage would not receive exaltation and eternal life in the celestial kingdom?

    Are you saying then that LDS leaders never ever said that the black race will be not be exalted? You question whether I was a “knowledgeable” member of the LDS faith, ( another personal attack, but I’ll have to forgive ‘ya:) and I would say “yes” ,that is why I am questioning you to please submit the resources to support your claim, bcause in all the study I have done of the teachings of LDS leaders prior to the ban, I was under the impression that they taught the blacks most certainly would not receive exaltation. Is this correct or in err?

    That is the question and the focus of my comment.

    I look forward to your courteous response,


  68. April 7, 2009 at 10:29 pm


    I also recognize what ” I thought” was taught by LDS leaders about black people receiving exaltation and eternal life, ( before the ban on the blacks) most definately could be wrong. That is why I am asking for proof texts to support what you are saying here. Is that asking too much?

    Thanks so much,


  69. 69 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    gloria: You seem to “question” who I am? “Who” do you think I am? I am not sure why you come out with personal attacks instead of focusing on the facts.

    GB: Apparently you weren’t paying attention. I don’t question that you are “who” you claim to be, but that you are “what” you claim to be.

    And after the last couple of posts, my doubts are growing even more.

    ‘I “was” faithful LDS for 19 yrs and gave my life over to King Jesus in 2007.’ Gloria post #8

    Well let’s see. 2007-19=1988 right.

    So you became a faithful LDS a full 10 YEARS after the revelation on the priesthood.

    So for you to say, “Sincerely speaking, I was told that black people would not become exalted.” Gloria post #67, you are OBVIOUSLY fabricating your story.

    This is the third fabrication that has been pointed out. And you wonder why I doubt that you are what you claim to be? Seriously?

  70. 70 GB
    April 7, 2009 at 11:21 pm

    As for racism.

    The SBC became a separate denomination in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, following a regional split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery.

    Residual effects of the decision to separate from other Baptists in defense of white supremacy and the institution of slavery have been long lived. A survey by SBC’s Home Mission Board in 1968 showed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit Americans of African descent.

    During the conservative resurgence, the Southern Baptist Convention of 1995 voted to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery. The resolution repenting racism marked the denomination’s first formal acknowledgment that racism played a role in its early history.

    Isn’t 1995 like 17 years AFTER 1978?

    Pot meet kettle!!

  71. April 7, 2009 at 11:22 pm


    You might want to check out the DVD of “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.”

    It’s a documentary about blacks in the LDS Church throughout history and how the doctrine and policies of the LDS Church evolved. I attended a viewing of the documentary hosted by my old Stake President in conjunction with the local university. Very interesting and powerfully moving story.

    You can purchase it online I believe. Easy to Google it.

  72. April 7, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    Yes, GB, I became LDS well after the ban on the priesthood was lifted. When I was taught by the LDS missionaries, I was told nothing about black people, and the history of the teachings regarding the black race. I had no idea. The missionaries I had certainly did not sare share anything about that with me. That is not part of the missionary discussions.
    I found out about the LDS teachings on black people much much later.
    Do you know of any LDS missionaries who teach about what the LDS “used” to teach to their prospective converts and investigators? I sure didn’t when I was an LDS missionary. Did you if you served a mission? How is that a fabrication? Yes, it’s true I gave my life to Jesus in the fall of 2007, and at that time I was actively participating in the programs of the LDS church. How is that a fabrication? I gave my life to Christ, while I was a mormon! Is that an impossibility? Does Jesus not save the lost?
    Why are you insisting I am “fabricating”. When I did my research years back on the blacks and the priesthood and “why” they were banned, I recall reading that B.Young and other prominent LDS leaders, taught that they ( black people) were “less valient” in the pre-existence and that they were cursed with black skin and would not inherit eternal life/exaltation. GB, when I read that I was deeply disturbed. I had reall problems with that, and expressed them to my husband and good friends in the LDS church. Why is that construed as a “fabrication”?

    Calling someone a “fabricator” is a serious thing, GB, you are basically publically calling me a “liar and on a public forum. 7 things God hates and one of them is “lying lips” and the other is “a false witness”. Proverbs 6:16-19 I am calling you on this one because it’s not right to false witness against someone.

    I think, I most certainly could be wrong, and please correct me if I am wrong here, is that you are upset that there is a former mormon here who is actually knows the “meatier” doctrines of mormonism and is not afraid to call a spade a spade. I think that is what is bothering you here, and hense the need for personal attacks and slander. You are trying to tear me down and personally attack me so I will “shut up”… is that correct? Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I have yet to attack anyone personally on this board and refuse to go that route. But I will say this, I am not going to be intimidate by you or any other LDS commentator here. You are free to try this , but let me assure you GB, I won’t be bullied. as I stated before I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you are nice enough person, but right now my mind is changing on that one… “nice” people don’t make false accusations about other, do they?

    I do hope that this makes things clear.

    You call me a ‘fabricator’ , in essense a “liar” and I am going to challenge you on that claim.

    As always sincere regards,

  73. April 7, 2009 at 11:50 pm


    I am glad that the Southern Baptist convention has made a public apology for their views and treatment of black people. I have stated here and other Christians have here as well, racism truly did exist in many Christian churches and I suspect still does today. It’s not right, it’s wrong and certainly not biblical.

    Has the LDS church publically apologized for their doctrines and teachings about the black people? I have not read of any, and maybe I am wrong. Please correct me if I am.

    I am also still waiting on you for the references I kindly asked for earlier. :)

    Thanks for the note on the DVD about the history of the Black plight in the LDS church. I have many friends who have adopted children of color and it weighs on their hearts as well.

    Sincere regards,

  74. 74 germit
    April 8, 2009 at 12:26 am

    GB: I’m missing something here…now WHEN exactly did your church PUBLICLY REPENT of the SIN of RACISM, specifically regarding its racist policies of withholding the priesthood from Blacks ?? the Baptists (finally) repented….good for them….and you guys repented ?????

    waiting for the news flash

    super-kudos to SETH for calling a duck a duck…. your honesty will be rewarded…but I guess I don’t need to tell a MORMON that… :-)

  75. 75 ladonnamorrell
    April 8, 2009 at 12:48 am


    Here is the short answer: The Lord does not need to apologize for himself.


  76. April 8, 2009 at 1:11 am

    Hi, Ladonna.
    I actually said I was proud to wear the title “apostate” from the LDS. :) I shared that comment in an earlier post in response to your comment. I am not offended at all by being called apostate and called myself one here on this site. You may go back and read my comments if you wish to make sure I am not “fabricating” it up. If I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and most certainly will take anything you have to dish out. :)

    I merely am asking for references for claims being made here by GB. That’s it. You can call me a “whiner” if you wish my dear. They called the Lord lots of things and much worse than whiner, so if you want to call me whiner or anything else for that matter, you most certainly are free to do so. I shall count it all for JOY!

    I will say I am sure grateful my LDS husband doesn’t talk to me like some of the LDS folks here do. I also can say the same for some of my dear friends who are LDS, they would be truly shocked by some of the responses here.

    You sure enjoy slinging stones, girl. I guess if that makes your day, I say go for it!

    As I said, I count it all for JOY!

    Sincere regards,

  77. April 8, 2009 at 1:15 am

    I just posted and I think the latest remarks by Ladonna have been deleted?

    Sorry folks if my last comment makes no sense to the rest of you. :)

    Ladonna, I’ll be praying for you and I mean that with all sincerity.


  78. April 8, 2009 at 1:19 am

    ladonna, of course the Lord need not apologize for himself.

    But since this particular policy doesn’t seem to have come from him, but rather from the Church, I expect an apology would be in order.

    The only question is whether Bruce R. McConkie’s address in General Conference following the lifting of the ban qualifies as an apology.

    Look, I believe in Mormonism and will defend the religion tooth and nail. But why is it necessary to pretend that the Church is perfect. It is not, nor has it ever been. I’m not talking about the members here. I’m talking about the CHURCH.

    It isn’t perfect.

    Why is this a big deal? Brigham Young had a half-baked opinion that he cribbed of neighboring Protestants. He never instituted it in any of the official ways we would expect for a bona fide revelation. I can see zero, zip, nadda evidence that the decision to withold full blessings from blacks was EVER a revelation at all. So why argue that it ever was a revelation?

    Brigham Young simply screwed up. It happens to mortal prophets.

    So what?

  79. April 8, 2009 at 2:06 am

    You truly are a fresh of breath air. I wish I knew ‘ya when I was questioning all this stuff on blacks and the priesthood years ago. The few friends I did open up to about my concerns and questions basically all said “put it on the shelf” or “get over it”. etc. I felt completely isolated and terribly misunderstood, like it was “my” problem.

    I am relieved to know that there are LDS out there who do not agree with the views of Mr.Young and others in regards to the black race. I do feel for my LDS friends who have adopted kids who are of color, this issue weighs heavy on them and they don’t know what they will tell their kids when they grow up and find out about it all. I feel you will make a positive impact in your ward and perhaps enlighten some of those members out there who still hold on to that nutty idea that colored people will become white with time, if they are living the LDS gospel. :)

    Kind regards,

  80. April 8, 2009 at 2:06 am

    Oops! I meant to say a “breath of fresh air” .. sorry about that. :)


  81. 81 germit
    April 8, 2009 at 2:28 am

    LaddonnaM: there are still, I’m pretty sure, large christian schools that unapologetically forbid interracial dating….same idea and same reasons: GOD would not want it, blah, blah, blah… what a shame to put such small mindedness on GOD’s resume and make HIM the fall guy for a sin so obvious, the average 3rd grade unbeliever has no trouble figuring out it’s whack and harmful.

    As an INSTITUTION, you guys don’t do REPENTANCE very well, but I’m certain that Seth has company so as INDIVIDUALS, you could teach your church a thing or two, and probably already are;

    I would imagine that racism of many varieties has grieved many in the LDS fold. I’m no one’s judge; I have my own baggage (room’s full) but I won’t sit still for EITHER the charade of ev.’s OR LDS pretending any kind of racial prohibition was GOD’s idea. I would just as quickly rebuke Bob Jones U. (if they still have their racial policies) as Brigham. And FoF, the priesthood analogy totally falls flat with me, that is a specific role and responsibility given to the Levites, but the GOD I know does not make those descisions based on race…as B.Young blatantly did. So B.Y. turns out to be quite human….this is not really news.

    What’s news are the bizarre defenses for the indefensible.


  82. April 8, 2009 at 2:47 am

    gloria ~ Seth, You truly are a fresh of breath air. I wish I knew ‘ya when I was questioning all this stuff on blacks and the priesthood years ago. The few friends I did open up to about my concerns and questions basically all said “put it on the shelf” or “get over it”. etc. I felt completely isolated and terribly misunderstood, like it was “my” problem.

    I wonder how often Seth hears something like this.

    Seth, how big is your head right about now?

    germit ~ Bob Jones University completely apologized for and recanted their racist policies.

  83. 83 germit
    April 8, 2009 at 2:53 am

    Sooooo….is Seth’s head like Mr.Potato head big…..or Macy’s Day Parade big ????

    Jack: thanks for the heads up on Bob Jones U. I hope they stand behind their new understanding.


  84. April 8, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Mormonism does not understand the Apostle Paul. The law was not given so that we could somehow gain “blessings” by trying to follow it, it was given to smash the inflated egos of self-righteous sinners.

    “Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.” – Galatians 3:21-22

    All who rely on the law to obtain blessings from God are under His anathema (Galatians 3:10-14). The only way to receive blessing from the Father is through faith in Christ and in Christ alone.

  85. April 8, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Good morning, all.

    I just wanted to post and ask those of you who are so inclined to please pray for Ladonna. Apparently she is not happy that she is not able to post here at this site anymore and left a note on my personal blog. As you can imagine it wasn’t a courteous comment. Please, let’s lift her up in prayer.

    Ladonna, if you are reading this, I just want you to know that I am praying for you, and I am sorry that you have such animosity towards me. I did not publish your comment on my blog, you can probably take a guess at “why”.

    May God heal your heart,


  86. 86 GB
    April 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm


    So now you are admitting that you never really heard anyone in the LDS Church teach or say what you initially claimed, but you think you read it somewhere in a non-canonical publication. I was beginning to think you had heard it last week from one of your anti-Mormon acquaintances on an anti-Mormon blog.

    I have never heard anything like what you claimed and I have been an active member all my life and was 20 years old when the revelation came.

    I find it interesting that those who have no standing (in the legal sense) because they received no injury, are the ones that are screaming the loudest over this issue.

    These people don’t have a problem with it, so why do you?

  87. 87 markcares
    April 8, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    I have not banned Ladonna from posting here. I will however delete comments by anybody that I feel are out of bounds. Most people have felt I have been quite lenient in allowing comments. It saddens me wheneve the comments take on the nature of personal ridicule and attack. My working philosophy is that we are all adults and we should be able to show civility and thus do not need a great deal of policing by me.

  88. April 8, 2009 at 2:59 pm


    I’m not taking sides on the lying thing with gloria. I’d have to re-read her comments more closely to see if what you’re saying is valid. But honestly, I don’t see much point in pursuing the topic any further. I’ve gotten personal with people on this website before and usually ended up regretting it later.

  89. 89 GB
    April 8, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Joseph S.

    Anti-Mormonism does not understand the Apostle Paul. When he is referring to “the law” most often he is referring to the law OF MOSES. The law of Moses was given as a “babysitter” to bring them to Christ. Unfortunately, by the time of Jesus, it had been so corrupted by men that it actually kept people from the truth.

    So you are correct when you say,”All who rely on the law (of Moses) to obtain blessings from God are under His anathema.”

  90. April 8, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Good morning, GB.

    All I have said here is that when I joined the LDS church I most definately was *not* taught the doctrines that early leaders had about black people/race. Do you know of any new converts or investigators that are taught such? I surely didn’t teach about the black/race teachings when I was an LDS missionary. Did you serve a mission? Did you teach that black people were cursed? Probably not.

    I stated it before and will state it here again, I personally researched out these teachings years after becoming LDS. You can read about them in the Journal of Discourses, or in the more recent writings of more modern LDS leaders. They are there for you to read. You don’t have to go to an anti mormon site to read them, GB. They are in your own leaders’ books. Do you agree? Are the writings of LDS leaders like Young, or Joseph Fielding Smith or McConkie not valid, not correct and just speculative? When I was LDS I believed that they were “inspired”.

    I have shared this here, I have adopted children of color. Obviously when a fellow LDS makes a comment about my kids skin becoming “whiter” it’s going to raise eyebrows with the parents. What was I supposed to say ” oh yeah, you’re right”…. no, I didn’t. I was disturbed. I studied these teachings out for myself. Even the book of mormon teaches about skin color and how one will become “white and deligthsome”. When I took my kids to the temple to be sealed and the sealer tells me that they will become “white” … what is a person to do? Please excuse me for being deeply troubled. I came home and I began to research these things out.

    The LDS church teaches it’s members to study and search, and that is exactly what I did.

    You say ” why do I have a problem with it?” Well, GB I have a problem with it, because I have children of color, and how do you think I should explain to them that they are “cursed”? Your comment is exactly the response I received from other LDS … “so what” .. or “what’s the problem”…. the problem is GOD IS NO respector of persons. The problem is GB these teachings about black people or brown people being cursed with darker skin is simply a lie. God never taught these things and it’s wrong to say that He did. That is my problem, GB.

    Your response is exactly the response I expect from most LDS when they are posed with a doctrinal issue that is shall we say “sensitive and rather sticky”….. instead of looking at the doctrine objectively , like Seth does here. ( kuddos to you, seth!) they would rather point the finger at the person who is “questioning”.

    Basically I was told to “shut up” and just accept the fact that God cursed the black people.

    Praise God, my eyes were opened, and I now KNOW that God is truly no respector of persons, that He created all kinds of skin color for His pleasure and glory, not as a “curse” as the LDS would teach.

    Thanks for giving me a chance to express my thoughts and concerns,


    ps. I am still waiting to read your references I kindly asked for. :) Thanks.

  91. April 8, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    Thanks, mark for your remarks. I appreciate the work you are doing here. I realize my skin has to be pretty tough to deal with the LDS on forums like this. Wowza……..

    God bless,

  92. April 8, 2009 at 3:33 pm


    ” What” do you define as “anti-mormonism?” And “why” would ‘anti-mormonism’ not understand the writings of Paul the apostle of our Lord?

    I look forward to your response,


  93. April 8, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    Mark: I like the way you give people lattitude “without the attitude”; this is a good way to go, in my opinion. I would rather have an ocaisional brusque comment allowed, than over-policing.

    Keep up the good work, bro


    GLORIA: how many cups of expresso do you start your day with…..you ROCK, I’ll have what you’re having…

  94. 94 Bryant A.
    April 8, 2009 at 4:16 pm


    Your a bright light, in the darkness, of this world.

    God bless you forever and ever.

  95. April 8, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    Hi, germit. :) Ahh…… coffee……. I have re-discovered just how “vun-derful” a cup of java is! :))) Mmmn….our LDS friends here are missing out big time. No disrepect inteded to our LDS readers here.

    God bless ‘ya,

  96. 96 GB
    April 8, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    Gloria: All I have said here is that when I joined the LDS church I most definately was *not* taught the doctrines that early leaders had about black people/race.

    GB: So now we are getting to the truth. You were not taught what a few leaders in the past may have said because IT IS NOT OFFICIAL DOCTRINE and NEVER HAS BEEN.

    What you should know but apparently don’t (and thus another reason for doubting what you claim to be) is that official doctrine is written down and then present to the church and sustained by the church before it becomes official.

    Also, what you should know but apparently don’t (and thus another reason for doubting what you claim to be) is that the Journal of Discourses is not canonized and is not official doctrine.

    And also, what you should know but apparently don’t (and thus another reason for doubting what you claim to be) is that McConkie wrote his book “Mormon Doctrine” in 1958, that is 14 years BEFORE he became an Apostle. No where is it claimed that any thing in his book is official doctrine. In fact, he took personal responsibility for the contents of the book.

    “white and delightsome”? Perhaps you are referring to;
    2 Ne. 30:6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a PURE and a delightsome people.

    This is another one you got WRONG!!!(and thus another reason for doubting what you claim to be)

    To me, an anti-Mormon is one who doesn’t let the truth interfere with their efforts to fight against the Church. Kind of like you ;-).

  97. 97 ladonnamorrell
    April 8, 2009 at 4:53 pm


    not sure why you addressed me on inter-racial dating??? but thanks for thinking of me!

    Thanks for soliciting prayers for me, Gloria. I can always use them! I feel welcome here, mark has been fair enough. What I say is the truth. Sorry if i don’t brown nose. sometimes the truth hurts and you seemed to perceive it as an attack. It is not meant to be. But you are right about growing a thick skin. There are members of the church that will not appreciate the things you say. I actually think you are out of line talking about leaving the church while your husband is still a member. that shows a lack of respect to me.

    c’est la vie!


  98. April 8, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    LaddonnaM; my point about the dating was in response to your comment “the LORD would not have to apologize ….etc..” same line of reasoning for those who (used to, hopefully) forbid inter-racial dating at “christian” schools….we aren’t being racist, just following Jeeeezuss….yeah….right…… that was the gist.

    spring has sprung here, hope it’s as glorious where you are sitting….with your chocolate :-)


  99. April 8, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    GB, if you’re going to insult someone, don’t add a winky icon after it.

    Just a personal request.

    By the by, I never had such racial doctrines taught to me IN CHURCH either. I had to discover the old racial teachings on my own. Teachings like the “Mark of Cain” or “Curse of Ham” or the idea that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence.

    I never once got the impression that such teachings were currently accepted by the modern LDS Church (though I don’t doubt we still have a few hardliner holdouts in our ranks who quietly still hold racist views).

  100. 100 ladonnamorrell
    April 8, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    thanks germie,

    i live where the sun always shines! except for the occaisonal rainy day that keeps my lawn green!

    I still hold that the Lord can do with His priesthood as He wishes. It is HIS.

    His ways are not always OUR ways. Going into the promised land and wiping out every living being seems harsh, too…but it was for the greater good. I don’t question the Lord…gets us into trouble!

    also, glor-ee-a (think rolling stones)….there is a difference between being a “faith-FULL” member and an “active” member!


  101. April 8, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Hi, Ladonna. I am sincerely glad to see you posting and for the change in your tone. :) Really I am. I agree that an LDS can be “active” and not “faith-ful”. No doubt about it. Lots of LDS go to church because of culture, or family etc, and not because they really are deeply converted to the LDS gospel. I agree with you on that.

    I prayed for you this morning, and I am glad that God softened your heart. I can tell a difference in your “tone”. Thank you Lord!

    Have a great day,

  102. April 8, 2009 at 6:43 pm


    Wow – I am glad that I am not the only one out there that experienced the same thing I did! The LDS doctrines on the black race are most certainly not taught today. The LDS are sincerely trying to move away from that and build new bridges with people of all race. For that I give them credit. But the fact remains that for over 100 yrs blacks “were” banned from what the LDS call the “ordinances of salvation and exaltation”. That can’t be erased, and it’s just something that the LDS will have to deal with.

    I want to point out that most denominations have “baggage” … look at the Southern Baptists and their racism ( which praise God they have apologized for!) and then the Catholics and the killing of innocents during the inquisition……… most denominations can claim they are infalliable or “perfect”……

    As I ponder that it makes me realize how as humans we are so prone to sin, and the flesh truly is weak…..

    Bottom line we are all wretches in need of grace and redemption………

    Thank you Jesus!


  103. April 8, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    Oops I meant to say most churches can *not* claim they are perfect of infalliable! Good grief, I need a cup of java. :)


  104. April 8, 2009 at 6:50 pm


    I kindly ask you to keep my husband out of things. It is not ok for you to go there. He is a wonderful man, who by the way allows me to have my “free agency”… that is something that the LDS teach , is it not? You have no business casting stones. You know what Jesus said about that one:

    John 8:7

    Why don’t we focus on the facts here, Ladonna and leave the “personal” as it should be “personal”.

    Thanks for giving me the respect that your Church teaches you to have,


  105. April 8, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    we’ve put in many miles on the racial road, but I’m going to wander back to the topic that MARK introduced for the thread: blessings and obedience.

    Just an observation: the ev. viewpoint grants a certain “cause and effect” nature to obedience…i.e. good things will find us when we obey, good things ordained and designed by GOD HIMSELF….but there is also a ‘givingness” of GOD that goes far beyond that. IN other words, GOD is in no way constrained by OUR part in order to give us something. Not that different than a parent would give their spouse or child a gift “just because….” no RESPONSE to an action, more like a generous INITIATIVE….. ev.’s have no problem with GOD initiating a blessing because HE flat wants to…that’s it…no quid pro quo of any kind, no guiding principle other than HE is a hilariously generous giver…..

    this is largely why the real GOOD NEWS is scandolous: it’s like…..so, not fair.


  106. April 8, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    Hi, GB. Is not conference talks consider doctrine and “scripture”?????

    Wasn’t it Ezra Taft Benson who said a prophet did not have to say “thus saith the Lord” for it to be considered the word of God? Was he wrong when he said that? Many of the JofD discourses were actually given in General Conferences of the LDS church – so it that not scripture?

    My final assignment/calling in the LDS ward I attended was the 4th Sunday teacher — or “teachings for our times”….. that was General Conference talks. I was most definately told that these talks were scripture, given for teaching and most definately to be regarded as the word of the Lord. Is that not true then? These talks are read and taught in the 4th Sunday in LDS worlds all over the world? So if they are “Not” the word of God – why would they be taught in their R.S. and Priesthood meetings? Hmmm…….

    You say the teachings about black people have never been “official doctrine”….. ok, that is your views, but I am asking you to please explain how then if it’s “not” official doctrine that LDS black people were thus denied access to the temple and thus the ‘saving ordinances’? And if these teachings/beliefs were spoken of in General Conference – then it’s “not” God’s word???

    So, you are saying that the blacks being denied the “saving ordinances” is not doctrine…. so what was it then?

    Also, for the statement from the book of Mormon stating “pure and delightsome”….. yes that is what it *currently* states, but I am sure you are aware ( and you would be if you have been LDS for many years) that this passage was changed from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome”. What say ye about this?

    Sincere Regards,

    ps. thanks for the compliment, about being an “anti-mormon”. You made my day! Seriously.

  107. April 8, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Thanks for getting us “back on track”. I sincerely apologize to the readers here for getting side tracked. I’ll try to do better in the future. :)
    I also wanted to just shout out an AMEN to what you posted…..
    That is the reason why the GOOD news is soooooooo good….. we don’t deserve God’s favor, merit or blessings……… that’s just what blows me away….. He blesses me not because I deserve it or have been obedient, He does it because He simply wants to …my righteousness is as “filthy” rags…. I sure as heck don’t deserve His merit.

    Good gray, the NEWS IS not only GOOD — it is GREAT!!!!!!!!

    A JOYous Easter to you,


  108. 108 GB
    April 8, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    “Wasn’t it Ezra Taft Benson who said a prophet did not have to say “thus saith the Lord” for it to be considered the word of God?”

    It might have been.

    “Was he wrong when he said that?”

    No, but he didn’t say that everything that was said by the prophet would be the word of God either.

    “Many of the JofD discourses were actually given in General Conferences of the LDS church – so it that not scripture?”

    As I said before, apparently you didn’t comprehend it, JofD is not scripture nor is everything in it official doctrine. How many time must I repeat this before you get it?

    “My final assignment/calling in the LDS ward I attended was the 4th Sunday teacher — or “teachings for our times”….. that was General Conference talks. I was most definately told that these talks were scripture, given for teaching and most definately to be regarded as the word of the Lord.”

    Told by whom?

    “Is that not true then?”

    Well let’s see, “to be regarded as” is not the same as “is” now is it?

    “These talks are read and taught in the 4th Sunday in LDS worlds all over the world? So if they are “Not” the word of God – why would they be taught in their R.S. and Priesthood meetings?”

    Because a person will get closer to God following the council of the living Apostles and prophets than by following what you hear at what ever non-LDS church meeting you attend.

    “You say the teachings about black people have never been “official doctrine”…..”

    Another misrepresentation of what I actually said. I said that what you CLAIMED to have been taught or told (but now you admit that you really weren’t) was never official doctrine. So nice straw man.

    Because you can’t truthfully represent what I have plainly and clearly said, I am no longer interested in dialoging with you.

    And because you continually misrepresent the facts, I don’t believe any of your anecdotal “evidence” is actually based in fact.

    “ps. thanks for the compliment, about being an “anti-mormon”.”

    Well, when it is obvious, it is obvious. :-)

  109. 109 ladonnamorrell
    April 8, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    hey GB….i think gloria just might have mis-read your “compliment”. ;)


    I am a very nice person….i always have a sweet “tone”. (right germit?) truth AND opinion should be welcome here. YOU brought up your husband,; we wouldn’t have even known about him! Word to the wise: don’t mention things that are “personal” because then it becomes fair game. keep those prayers coming!


  110. 110 markcares
    April 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    “Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph. ‘Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he sahll give unto you’ (D&C 21:4).” That’s from the LDS manual, “Teachings of the Living Prophets”, p. 21.

  111. April 8, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    germit wrote:

    “Just an observation: the ev. viewpoint grants a certain “cause and effect” nature to obedience…i.e. good things will find us when we obey, good things ordained and designed by GOD HIMSELF….but there is also a ‘givingness” of GOD that goes far beyond that. IN other words, GOD is in no way constrained by OUR part in order to give us something.”

    That’s really no different than my own view of things germit, and I think it’s consistent with LDS scriptures as well. Mark quoted D&C 130 originally. I guess to make the point that LDS scripture seems to indicate that blessings only ever come in response to human performance and never from God.

    Let me just first point out that I do not personally think that human performance is pre-requisite for all blessings. I think God sometimes does simply provide blessings in our lives without anything from our end.

    I also think that in his own good time, God does reward obedience to his laws where it exists. The timing may not be instantaneous and some blessings may even be deferred till after death. But I do believe such are rewarded. This is consistent with God’s character.

    The real question is whether this verse is talking about an “earned salvation” in the sense that Mark probably means that phrase.

    I’m not convinced that it does. The way I read it, certain performances are required of us to enter into God’s presence. These performances are dictated by God’s own law. If you perform them correctly, that means you may so enter.

    But this does not mean I merited entering into God’s presence or that I merited Celestial glory.

    Look at it this way. I had a tough time getting my two year-old son to eat all his vegetables last night. There was a tantrum, and it became eventually obvious to me that he just wasn’t going to be able to get through all of them. He was unhappy having to sit there. So I offered him a way out. I told him that if he would just eat “that one bean” and about three of those carrot pieces, he’d be “all done.”

    Was it really about the nourishment? Hardly. It certainly wasn’t about finishing dinner. Did he really merit getting up? Not really (the little twerp). But I didn’t like seeing him unhappy, so I offered an artificial out. It wasn’t about the vegetables. It was about my love for him and ALSO about his love and respect for me. I couldn’t let him think that tantrums are a way to get what he wants. I had to find a way to preserve a good father-son relationship between him and me.

    It wasn’t about “merit” at all. It was about love. That was why I gave the “commandment” (if you will) and why he had to obey it to receive the “blessing.”

    I see this scripture passage similarly.

  112. April 8, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    Interesting reply , Seth, and well done with mini-Seth….Barak should have a cabinet post for you… to pull your dinner analogy out: imagine Jr’s expression if , when expecting broccoli and carrots, he turns around to find chicken nuggets, and as much favorite sauce as he wanted..(granted, all of life is not like that, but aren’t there times when GOD does pretty much that ??) this does not have to “spoil us” if most of the time it’s a case of eating cauliflower because….well….that’s what’s for dinner tonight.

    I’m not going to wring the results of my question dry….but most LDS (an impression) seem much less hesitant to allow for this kind of super-generous gesture. Just an impression.

    Do you ever count the days/weeks/months before Little Big Man goes off to get his law degree ??


  113. April 8, 2009 at 10:15 pm

    OOOPS…should have read “most LDS are much MORE hesitant….” sorry about that.

  114. 114 germit
    April 9, 2009 at 12:55 am

    GB: do you want to take this one back ?? Were you just having a Bill Clinton moment ??

    Well let’s see, “to be regarded as” is not the same as “is” now is it?


  115. 115 Brad
    April 9, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Don’t worry Gloria, everything’s a straw man to GB.

  116. April 9, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Good afternoon!

    I know that GB expressed a desire to no longer “dialogue” with him. I respect his wishes, and am not focusing my comments below directly at him , but rather to any of you who wish to read what the LDS leaders have to say in regards to the importance of the General Conference talks and also of the importance that the Journal of Discourses have held in the LDS church.

    You can find these quotes either at lds.org or you can view a copy of the Journal of Discources thru the BYU online resources.

    I think these comments clearly support my original thoughts/claims about the importance of the general conference talks and also of the JofD.

    I sincerely hope you all enjoy a blessed and JOYous Easter,


    In regards to my original comments about general conference:

    ” If you want to know what the Lord has for this people at the present time, I would admonish you to get and read the discourses that are delivered at general conference. For what the bretheren speak by the power of the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the voice of the Lord and the power of God unto salvation”. Harold B. Lee, Conference Reports, April 1973, pg. 176 See also Stand Ye in Holy Places, pg. 183

    ** For Non LDS readers Mr.Lee was at one point the “prophet seer and revelator” ( 11th president) of the LDS church. ****

    ” Our modern-day prophets have encouraged us to make the reading of general conference edition of our church magazines an important and regular part of our personal study. Thus, general conference becomes in a sense, a supplement to or an extention of the Doctrine & Covenants.” Howard W. Hunter, 14th Pres. of the LDS church, Church News, Oct. 23,2004 pg.4

    ” Conference addresses are the word of the Lord. This church has been continually led by the spirit of revelation. The spirit of revelation has been here in our conference. The addresses that have been delivered have been made under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and they ARE the Word of God unto this people, binding upon them, and they will be judged by these words, that we have heard. If we do not listen to these instructions and counsels and abide by the word of God as it is given to us from time to time , we shall be held in strict accountability. ” George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, Discourses and Writings of Pres. George Q. Cannon, 1:329

    *** For non LDS readers — Mr. Cannon was a member of the First Presidency of the LDS church **

    ” The teachings of this conference are the compass of the Lord. In the coming days you may , as Lehi did walk out your front door and find a Liahona, Ensign or other Church publication in your mailbox, and it will contain the proceedings of this conference. As with the Liahona of old, this new writing will be plain and easy to read and will give you and your family understanding concerning the ways and paths of the Lord. ” Lowell M.Snow, ” Compass of the Lord” , Ensign ( conference edition) Nov. 2005, Member of the Seventy.


    As concering the “doctrinal validity of the Journal of Discourses” :

    The Prefaces to Volumes 4 and 8 include comments from the Publisher. Volume 4 preface states:

    ” It would be altogether gratituous and uncalled for on our part to write a commendatory preace to the discourses of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles of the Church. To the saints their words are as the words of God, their teachings fraught with heavenly wisdom, and their directions leading to salvation and eternal lives.”

    Preface to Volume 8:

    ” The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector or light that shines from the hill of Zion.”

  117. April 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    P.S. I forgot to include that many of the writings of the Journal of Discourses were given at LDS general conferences — therefore they take on special significance as not just “talks” as Pres. Hunter says they become an “extention to the Doctrine & Covenants”. The D & C, are considered part of the standard works of the LDS church.

    Sincere Regards,

  118. April 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    Hello, Brad.

    I am not worried.

    God is at the helm.

    His word endures forever and will not return void.

    God bless,

  119. 119 GB
    April 9, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon Nephi, speaking of the latter-day restoration, discusses the future conversion of Lehi’s descendants, “And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people.” (2 Nephi 30:6 1830 edition)

    In 1840 the Book of Mormon was “carefully revised by the translator” Joseph Smith and in that edition the words “white and delightsome” were changed to “pure and delightsome.” This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to Latter-day racial changes rather than righteousness. Unfortunately for subsequent LDS interpreters, following the Prophet’s death, the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent LDS printings, which were based upon the edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. Interpreting this passage as meaning that conversion leads to a change of skin color echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than an anachronism in the text itself.

    But can we justify the prophet’s change from “white” to “pure?” The answer is yes. The terms “white” and “pure” can be found in parallel in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and D&C 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ. (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6) Moreover, we must note that the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the prophet Joseph modified does not refer to the Lamanites, but to the Jews and Gentiles in the latter days who turn to Christ. (See 2 Nephi 30:1-7) Similarly, Mormon expressed the hope the Nephites “may once again be a delightsome people.” (Words of Mormon 1:8) It was also of the Nephites that he wrote,

    And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and
    idolatry. (Mormon 5:15)

    The use of black and white imagery to typify purity and righteousness is exemplified in the writings of Ephraim of Syria, a fourth century A.D. contemporary of Mormon in the Old World who commented on Philip’s baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch as follows. “The eunuch of Ethiopia upon his chariot saw Philip: the Lamb of Light met the dark man from out of the water. While he was reading, the Ethiopian was baptized and shone with joy, and journeyed on! He made disciples and taught, and out of black men he made men white. And the dark Ethiopic women became pearls for the Son.” {The Pearl: Seven Hymns on the Faith 3:2, in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
    1994), 13:295.}

    The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the color of one’s skin has no bearing on one’s status as a righteous or sinful person. Nephi, the son of Helaman, declared to the Nephites,

    For behold, thus saith the Lord: I will not show unto the wicked of my strength, to one more than the other, save it be unto those that repent of their sins, and hearken unto my words. Now therefore, I would that ye should behold, my brethren, that it shall be better for the Lamanites than for you except ye shall repent. For behold, they are more righteous than you, for they have not sinned against that great knowledge which ye have received; therefore the Lord will be merciful unto them; yea, he will lengthen out their days and increase their seed, even when thou shalt be utterly destroyed except thou shalt repent. (Helaman 7:23)

    This passage is reminiscent of Nephi’s vision of the future of the Lamanites: “And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.” (1 Nephi 12:23) Clearly, the Book of Mormon describes various people–including the Nephites themselves–as being dark, filthy, and loathsome in a spiritual sense. The Nephites who dissented to the Lamanites would not have considered them in such negative terms, and the Lord himself does not use such verbiage to describe the Lamanites. Moreover, Nephites such as the sons of Mosiah and their generation, who welcomed converted Lamanites into their society, have only good things to say about these converts.

    We conclude, then, that while some Nephites seem to have been racist in the sense that they were repulsed by the skin color of the Lamanites, this was not a general trait. Rather than promoting concepts of racial inferiority, Book of Mormon events and teachings clearly suggest that people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds and traditions can truly overcome old hatreds and misconceptions and attain peace, happiness and unity through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  120. 120 Brad
    April 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    Amazing how a church that supposedly has “continuing revelation”, with a prophet and apostles, could have such internal communication problems in the “one true church” that it couldn’t make the simple change from “white” to “pure” for 141 years.

    I call hooey.

  121. April 10, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    It’s only amazing if you expect God to wipe your nose for you every day Brad.

  122. 122 Brad
    April 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    Nobody’s talking about wiping noses, Seth. We’re talking about a book, supposedly the “most correct on Earth”, that was “carefully revised by the translator”, b/c he supposedly had concerns that the correct message wasn’t getting across, yet these “careful revisions” weren’t able to be carried out by the leadership of the church and ensured they were made in subsequent texts until 141 years later.

    You would think with the continuing revelation, the leadership of a true prophet, seer and revelator, as well as numerous other apostles and leaders under him, that they could affect a change that Smith thought was important enough to make 141 years prior to that.

    You can call it nose wiping if you want – I call it pure bunk.

  123. April 10, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    You know Brad, I’m just sick of the fundamentalist mindset.

    God has to do it my way. Everything has to be perfect. Life has to work according to the secret formula.

    Or it’s all “bunk.”

    I just call it stupid teenage thinking. And I’m done justifying myself to a bunch of mental adolescents who just can’t accept that maybe life isn’t perfect and isn’t supposed to be.

  124. 124 GB
    April 10, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    What about the 1 John 5:7 problem?

    It has been nearly 400 years since the Bibles first English publication and this problem STILL hasn’t been resolved. If the Bible is “God breathed”, how could this happen?

    International Standard Version (©2008)
    For there are three witnesses-

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    For there are three that testify:

    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    There are three witnesses:

    King James Bible
    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    American King James Version
    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

    American Standard Version
    And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

    Bible in Basic English
    And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

    Darby Bible Translation
    For they that bear witness are three:

    English Revised Version
    And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

    Weymouth New Testament
    For there are three that give testimony– the Spirit, the water, and the blood;

    World English Bible
    For there are three who testify:

    Young’s Literal Translation
    because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these — the three — are one;

    The New Jerusalem Bible
    So there are three witnesses,

  125. 125 Brad
    April 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    You know Brad, I’m just sick of the fundamentalist mindset.

    God has to do it my way. Everything has to be perfect. Life has to work according to the secret formula.

    Or it’s all “bunk.”

    I just call it stupid teenage thinking. And I’m done justifying myself to a bunch of mental adolescents who just can’t accept that maybe life isn’t perfect and isn’t supposed to be.

    You know Seth, I’m just sick of the Mormon mindset.

    God will save everyone somehow, just not to the same level. Most everyone will make it, b/c a loving God wouldn’t have it be different. Life works according to a changing formula, subject to the whims of old men in Utah.

    And anyone who opposes it is sinful, hasn’t REALLY asked, or is an anti-Mormon.

    I just call it stupid teenage thinking. I’m not even worried about justifying myself to them, who just can’t accept that perhaps the religion they follow that was invented less than 200 years ago is a pure hoax.

  126. 126 Brad
    April 10, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    Have a point, GB.

    Has anyone come on here and claimed that ALL Bibles should have the SAME translation? If so, please point that post out to me. B/c your example above would only be a logical response if you were trying to counter that claim, which hasn’t been made, that I see.

    What I said, in response to what YOU wrote, was that with the ONE version (well, at least now – of course there have been many) of the BOM, how, over 141 years, especially with the benefit of a living prophet at all times and continuing revelation, and being the one true church, did you all not catch this error that Smith felt important enough to change, according to what you said?

    I can say “I tossed the ball”, or “I threw the ball” – either way, the picture is of a ball being projected outward from my hand. “Tossed” and “threw” are different ways of expressing a common action, in this case. Nothing about different translations goes against the fact that the Bible is still the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God.

  127. 127 GB
    April 10, 2009 at 5:46 pm


    I take it you are not aware of the controversy regarding this verse. The problem shows up in the English because it also exists in the Greek texts.

  128. 128 GB
    April 10, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century.

    If the Bible is “God breathed” how could this happen?

  129. April 10, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    I wasn’t attacking Christianity Brad. Just the stupid kind.


    And you find both in the LDS Church and in other religions. But it’s based on an extremely childish view of the scriptures, of life, and of God.

  130. April 10, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    In essence, I think that all religious fundamentalists are basically just atheists waiting to happen.

    All it’s going to take is that one little flaw they uncover in their own religion of choice. That one little crack. And once they discover it, the brittle, unbending conviction they once held to so tightly will snap and BANG, you’re an atheist.

    Fundamentalism doesn’t work – no matter if you’re Mormon or Evangelical.

  131. 131 Brad
    April 10, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    No, I’m aware of it, I just don’t see a problem with 1 John 5:7 as you seem to. What problem does this pose? God never promised that all texts we have would be exactly His words, or that we would always have the original books themselves. God never promised this. He did preserve His word in what we have today. Good scholars are quick to note that the Bible is not 100% textually accurate – it’s between 97-99%, by most scholars. However, the same are also quick to point out that any passages or verses that are “debatable”, also present no problems when you look at the Bible as a whole. Thankfully, the Bible is made up of more than just 1 John 5:7.

    Of course, you can feel free to concentrate on this problem if you wish, as you have, while sidestepping what caused me to write to you in the first place, which you have also done. In fact, what you’re trying to argue about here has nothing to do with what was being talked about regarding “white” and “pure”. Further, the LDS church shouldn’t have this problem, given it’s living prophet, continuing revelation, and one translation of it’s Bible and BOM. Nevertheless, it does.

  132. 132 Brad
    April 10, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Seth, I disagree completely (of course, you probably guessed that).

    I would consider myself a fundamentalist Christian (evangelical), and I know many people who believe and think much like I do. People are free to consider me whatever they want – I’m not bound by, nor judged by, their views of me, nor do they affect me or change my beliefs. I have faith in what I believe, b/c it’s true. I believe other religions (including LDS) are wrong, based upon a lot of study I have done about many different religions.

    Are there Christians who couldn’t fight their way out of a wet theological paper bag? Absolutely. Are there Mormons who couldn’t do the same, as it pertains to what they believe? Absolutely. But to say that “fundamentalists” are bad, or crazy, or near atheism, while it may be your opinion, can’t be shown as truth – it will only be your opinion. I don’t care if you have it or not, just as you probably don’t care about my opinion regarding your opinion. Either way, I’m fine, and I will continue to believe what I believe.

  133. 133 GERMIT
    April 10, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Seth wrote:

    Fundamentalism doesn’t work – no matter if you’re Mormon or Evangelical.

    well said…..and the good news for ev.’s is that many are waking up to this set up; it’s taken awhile to realize one could jettison the “fundamentalist” approach and still hold a high view of scripture and GOD. One positive to the whole emerging church thing is a re-evaluation of some of these sacred cows…

    bar-be-que anyone…?????


  134. April 10, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    I have an entire paper on 1 John 5:7-8 and its significance for LDS thought. I think textual criticism is just as dangerous to Mormonism as it is to biblical inerrancy, since other passages that are condemned by textual critics as interpolations are replicated in the Book of Mormon. Or it could be just as harmless. It all depends on your paradigm.

    I believe in inerrancy, but my view of it is pretty liberal. I think the Bible as we have it today is exactly what God wanted us to have, meaning I think serious interpolations and changes are inspired. I don’t think the original biblical authors heard voices in their head telling them exactly what to write down or anything like that.

  135. April 10, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    “God never promised that all texts we have would be exactly His words, or that we would always have the original books themselves. God never promised this. He did preserve His word in what we have today.”

    This is also true of the Book of Mormon Brad. I present to you the following Book of Mormon passages. A lot of Mormons ignore them or don’t really “get” what they mean, but they are there nonetheless. Here we go:

    1 Nephi 19: 6
    6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

    2 Nephi 33: 4
    4 And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good; it maketh known unto them of their fathers; and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life eternal.

    Mormon 8: 17
    17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

    Mormon 9: 31-33
    31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.
    32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
    33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

    And finally…

    Ether 12: 23-26
    23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;
    24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.
    25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
    26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

    In light of these verses, I think many will want to revise a little bit what Joseph meant when he called the Book of Mormon the “most correct of any other book.” Because he certainly didn’t mean it was “perfect.” That is quite clear from the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

  136. 136 GB
    April 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    B: Further, the LDS church shouldn’t have this problem, given it’s living prophet, continuing revelation, and one translation of it’s Bible and BOM.

    GB: Really, so just because one has been called by God to be a prophet, they suddenly become perfect, infallible and omniscient? Why is it that only anti-Mormons insist that the prophets and apostles have to be perfect, infallible and omniscient?

    B: God never promised that all texts we have would be exactly His words, or that we would always have the original books themselves. God never promised this.

    GB: You got that right. But apparently you can’t apply this to the Book of Mormon. And yet the title page says, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

  137. April 10, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    Wow. I’m exhausted after reading through all those comments! Kind of glad I read this AFTER the smoke cleared…

  138. 138 Brad
    April 10, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    I’m not an anti-Mormon, but I’m proudly anti-Mormonism. Big difference.

  139. 139 GB
    April 10, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    Brad: I’m not an anti-Mormon, but I’m proudly anti-Mormonism. Big difference.

    GB: Wow, Brad! Such a compelling argument. You almost have me convinced. ;-)

  140. April 10, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    Not much of a distinction to me Brad. It’s such a core part of who I am, you might as well be anti-Mormon (or at least this one).

    At any rate, it’s always more effective to stand FOR something than against something.

  141. 141 Brad
    April 13, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    I do stand FOR something – God’s truth, which I do not believe to be found in Mormonism.

    Therefore, in standing FOR God’s truth, I stand AGAINST Mormonism.

    As to the distinction, to not see it would be saying it’s impossible to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, a common tagline. If no distinction can be made, that is impossible to do. However, God Himself doesn’t hate anyone, only the sin that we all commit.

  142. 142 GB
    April 13, 2009 at 6:57 pm


    I do stand FOR something – God’s truth, which I do know to be found in Mormonism.

    Therefore, in standing FOR God’s truth, I stand for Mormonism.

    There I fixed it for you.:-)

  143. April 13, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    What equates truth? Jesus.

    He said it so plainly in John 8 ” and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”…. verse 32 and then verse 35: ” If the son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed”. Jesus is the truth. He is the WAY, the TRUTH and the light. John 14:6

    The truth that Christians proclaim to the world is that JESUS is the WAY. John 14:6

    We are not proclaiming a “church” is the way…. but Jesus.

    We are not preaching Church membership as a “means” to gain eternal life……

    We are preaching Jesus.

    “If” The LDS church truly believes that JESUS is the WAY and the name of the way — than they should have no problems with the message that Christians are proclaiming or the message that the bible proclaims. If the LDS truly embrace and believe that Jesus is the way – then they shoud have no issues with Christians, because they will agree that JESUS is the “name” of the way.

    Never once did Jesus teach “religious denomination” as the way.

    If being a member of a certain church was so important – our Lord most definately would have told us.

    God bless,

  144. April 13, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    I thought he was doing exactly that when he was baptized.

  145. 145 Brad
    April 13, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    GB, as I’ve said before, both of us can’t be right, since we have opposing viewpoints on a common topic. I don’t want you to think it’s a joke – it’s extremely serious, eternally serious.

    We will both find out when we die, who was wrong, and who will be eternally wishing they would have listened. Yes, each of us believe we are right, but we simply both aren’t – we can’t be.

    What a sad day that truly will be…

  146. April 13, 2009 at 8:05 pm


    Jesus was baptized. No doubt about that. As believers we are baptized in “Christ”. I agree with baptism. My thought though was that Jesus did not preach a certain denomination or church membership. He preached Himself. That’s what made the “religionists” ( = Jewish leaders) so stinking angry.

    John 8:13,14
    The pharisees therefore said unto him ” thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true”
    The response of our Lord: ” Though I bear record of myself, yet my record IS TRUE.”

    And what is that truth?

    That Jesus is the way. That is the truth that we as Christians boldly exlaim to the world.

    Do you agree that the name of the way to inherit eternal life is Jesus?

    Or do you beleive it’s thru some other way?

    Kind regards,

  147. April 13, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Oh, why can’t you two just take turns being right?

    Geez… didn’t you guys ever watch Teletubbies?

  148. 148 GB
    April 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    B: GB, as I’ve said before, both of us can’t be right, since we have opposing viewpoints on a common topic.

    GB: Obviously!

    B: I don’t want you to think it’s a joke – it’s extremely serious, eternally serious.

    GB: Ok!

    B: We will both find out when we die, who was wrong, and who will be eternally wishing they would have listened. Yes, each of us believe we are right, but we simply both aren’t – we can’t be.

    GB: We will both find out when we die, that Brad was wrong, and Brad will be eternally wishing he would have listened. Yes, each of us believe we are right, but we simply both aren’t – we can’t be. What a sad day that truly will be for Brad.

    There Brad I fixed it for you. :-)

  149. April 13, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    Well, yeah gloria.

    Jesus didn’t preach a particular denomination. Because there was no such thing back then (unless you count the Essenes or something). There was God’s Church and then there were all the other gentile religions.

    Jesus preached ONE CHURCH. Which I’m sure you are aware, the LDS Church claims to be.

  150. 150 ladonnamorrell
    April 14, 2009 at 2:55 am


    I don’t think you fully understood the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You may have been fully active…but if you would have put half as much energy into studying the gospel as you do tearing it down, you would realize that all the questions you are asking have already been answered.

    The LDS church teaches that JESUS is the ONLY WAY to eternal life. Jesus loved the church, he compared it to his bride! He never intended many different teachings or modes of baptism. remember, “one faith, one Lord, one baptism”?? The Church is here to give us the chance to serve, to bless others, to hear the good word of God, to partake of His emblems, to worship together, to love one another. The Church is our vehicle….not the “way” to return to Him.

    The confusion you have had over “race relations”, Julie Beck’s talk and other things leads me to (respectfully) say that you didn’t know what you had!


  151. April 14, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Seth: interesting how this plays out….anyone with a “one true church ” paradigm for their particular denom. then is pushed into saying “they were all—–” back then; so the E.Orthodox are saying that ….the Roman Catholics are saying that…. and on and on. Lots of “one true churches” apparently.


  152. April 14, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Hello, seth. Thanks for taking time to respond.

    You say jesus preached “church”.. would you kindly expand on that. Jesus preached Himself over and over again as the ONLY way to receive eternal life : ” he that beleiveth on me” is stated so many times in the NT I can’t even keep track. When did He ever say one must “join church” to inherit eternal life? If becoming a member of the LDS church was necessary to our eternal salvation, Jesus would have most definately stated that.

    The church we are told is comprised of the “body of beleivers”…. as Christians we believe the church is all those who accept Christ Jesus as Messiah, and have recedived His saving grace. For christians it is not a church denomination or building. We are the “body” as Paul so eloquently writes.

    That is why as Christians we do not preach “religion” or “church” we preach Christ Jesus.

    An example, last night at the prison ministry I am blessed to be a part of — we had 3 ladies come to the Lord and receive Jesus and salvation. It was awesome! Thank you Jesus! My wonderful friend explained it well when she said ” ladies, we are here to tell you JESUS is THE WAY – not “a” way – but THE way…. she went on to say that many churches will say “our church is the way” but truly there is only ONE WAY, and that is Christ. It’s not Jesus + works, plus church membership = eternal life. But JESUS alone. His blood alone is what saved us and grants us eternal life.

    Ladonna, if you truly believe Jesus is the WAY – then Hallelujah!!! If that is true, Ladonna, then you have no problems with Christians, because we proclaim, JESUS is the way too! :) If that is the case, That the LDS church has no need then to convert Christians to the Mormon church and teachings — because they are already in “the way”. Why then do LDS missionaries go out and yes even go the homes of Christians and tell them that their church is incorrect and that they need to join the LDS? Perhaps because in truth, the LDS church does not believe Jesus is THE way. The believe He is only part of the equation. As the LDS article of faith declares:

    We believe that thru the atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

    So, in reality — it is not ONLY Jesus is the WAY for the LDS — it is Jesus + mormon ordinances = eternal life.

    Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Sincere Regards,

  153. 153 Brad
    April 14, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    You’re right, Gloria – but you’ll never get that answer on here.

  154. April 14, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Seriously Brad, do you ever offer anything but cynical whining?

    I thought about engaging gloria’s question. But I’ve got some other things to do at the moment and I figured it wasn’t exactly on topic anyway. So there you are. Maybe GB or someone will have a stab at it.

  155. April 14, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Hi, brad.

    I was thinking about a conversation I had with my husband a few days back. He remains active in the LDS faith. We were talking abou this issue of ” The way” . My husband was very honest with me, and he bluntly told me Jesus is not enough. That it is solely not Jesus that the LDS beleive is what grants eternal life. For the LDS it is Jesus + LDS church membership ( thru baptism in the LDS faith) and + LDS temple ordinances + enduring to the end and remaining faithful to all the LDS doctrines. That is “the way” for the LDS.
    I am grateful that my husabnd and I can dialogue and be honest one with another. It’s frustrating to me when I ask a question and I don’t get an honest answer back. Why can’t the LDS just openly admit that Jesus’ blood is not enough? Just honestly tell the world that it’s Jesus + everything else they teach.

    I for one at least can appreciate and respect the LDS who is strong enough in their convictions to not water down what they truly do believe.

    I get frustrated when I hear from LDS ” oh yes, Jesus is the way” when in reality He is not.

    Let’s be honest with one another.

    That’s my motto.

    God bless,

  156. April 14, 2009 at 2:29 pm


    Do you believe that people can reject Jesus?

  157. April 14, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    Hi, seth. Yes, I do believe people can reject Jesus.
    The Bible gives us endless accounts of people thru out the history of the world who have rejected the Messiah. The Jews as a whole rejected Christ.


  158. April 14, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    This was a leading question actually.

    If you believe that people are capable of rejecting Jesus, then you actually are adding something to Jesus’ grace – human acceptance.

    For Mormons, I think the question is not whether we believe in Jesus’ grace so much as it is about what we consider adequate acceptance of that grace.

  159. 159 GB
    April 14, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    The only way to salvation is the way that Jesus prescribed. There is no other way. Many “claim” to believe in Jesus but they don’t believe what Jesus plainly and clearly taught.

    Jesus organized His church.

    Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    What part about “I will build my church” is so difficult to understand?

    And what was the foundation of His Church?

    Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
    20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

    And what was this foundation for and how long would in be found in Jesus’ Church?

    Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
    12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
    13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
    14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

    What part of “Till we all come in the unity of the faith . . . ” is so difficult to understand?

    And what did Jesus teach about Baptism?

    Matt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

    So Baptism is need to “fulfil all righteousness”. Sounds like a requirement to me.

    Matt 28:19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    John3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    Acts 2:37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
    38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    1 Pet 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

    Sounds like a requirement to me.

    Can just anyone Baptize? Obviously NOT!!!
    See Acts 19:1-6.

    Yes, the only way to salvation is the way that Jesus prescribed. There is no other way. Many “claim” to believe in Jesus but they don’t believe what Jesus plainly and clearly taught.

  160. 160 ladonnamorrell
    April 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm


    you wrote, “So, in reality — it is not ONLY Jesus is the WAY for the LDS —
    it is Jesus + mormon ordinances = eternal life. Please correct me if I am wrong.”

    Oh, thank you for the chance to correct you! I have been DYING to do it!!

    Gloria, as you know (or should know from being an “active” Latter-day Saint), Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to eternal life. He tells us that over and over, and we believe Him. He also gives us His requirements, His qualifications that show we are “His”. One is baptism. On your blog you say that it is not necessary for salvation, but you are wrong. Just turn to Mark 16:16 and see! Jesus himself, even though He was perfect and did not need to wash away His sins, was baptized. He did it to fulfill ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. that means it is a REQUIREMENT TO SALVATION, and even though (or because) he was perfect and didn’t “need” the remission of sins, he obeyed!!! There are many other times we are told “what to do” to qualify for the blessing of salavation. We must OBEY, see Hebrews 5:9.

    no where does it say: “confess my name (something even the devil can do) and that is it!! oh and by the way you will naturally start to do all the things that i mistakenly “commanded” you to do”

    Your husband needs a refresher course. Jesus + obedience to HIS commandments = Salvation

    THAT is what the Church of Jesus Christ teaches. It teaches that Jesus is the WAY! It teaches that WE are responsible for our choices, He will not force us to heaven. It teaches us to FOLLOW HIM, to be baptized, to receive the Holy Ghost (as He did), it teaches us to worship HIM (we do), it teaches us to take His gospel forth to every nation (we do), it teaches us to pay tithing (see Malachi), it teaches us to serve others (see the entire bible),
    it teaches us to OBEY!!! Like i have said before, if it was as easy as you say it is the Bible would be 3 pages long and the Apostles could have lounged on the beach!

    have a nice day!


  161. April 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    Hi, seth.

    God made that a requirement — ” For God so loved the World that whomesover should believe in HIM, should not perish but have everlasting life”.

    Sincere belief in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior has always been a neccesity of receiving salvation. One must believe in Christ — He said that over and over again. His grace was made manifest on Calvary – thru the shedding of blood for our sins… it’s up to us, seth if we wish to believe “if” Jesus’ blood is what saves us.

    Kind regards,

  162. April 14, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, but it still “adds” something to Jesus’ Atonement.

    We are not arguing about grace here.

    What we are arguing about is the method of accepting that grace.

  163. April 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm


    It’s nice to hear from you. I was under the impression you no longer wished to “dialogue” with me? I guess you have changed your mind on that. No bother, I am always happy to contend for the faith.

    I read thru all the passages you cited, and I am familiar with them.

    The issue I have is with your interpretation of these passages GB. As you are well aware, the LDS translate/interpret the bible completely differently than Christians do. In all honesty, we are going to look at these verses and come to completely different conclusions.

    For example, I completely agree that Jesus told Peter that upon this “ROCK” you will build “MY Church” . Jesus did indeed state that to Peter. What He did not state is that the church would save. Jesus saves. Not the church or abiding by the rules of a particular church. The Greek word for rock is “petra” ( like the name of the Christian worship band – they have great music!) The foundation of the church of our Lord is the confession, of the apostles and their witness they gave of our Lord. That is why in the New City of God – the New Jerusalem the foundations stones will have the name of the 12 apostles. ( notice only 12 ) Their witness of Jesus, what He said, what He did is the foundation of our faith.

    But I want to make it clear that this “church” is not a denomination or a buidling. Paul’s writings clearly tell us that the “church” = the body of Christ. Romans 12:5 Ephesians 2:22,23
    The Church itself is “HIS” body. The church is US, that is believers who truly have accepted in their hearts and minds and souls that Jesus is the THE way and have been born again. ( John 3:3) BEelivers are HIS Church. That is a primary difference between the LDS and Christians. The LDS believers believe the LDS church is “HIS” church and Christians believe “we” as His people, the sheep of His fold are His people. See the difference?

    Jesus has such an intimate relationship with His people – His church that she is considered “HIS body”

    The other passages you cited, are not going to be looked at in the same way as Christians do, GB. For example in your passage about baptism – the following verse tells us that he that does not believe is dammend. NON belief in our Lord is what damns us, not a lack of baptism. As christians we do embrace the teaching of baptism. But we do not view the teachings of our Lord in John 3 the same way LDS do. Being born of water and the spirit for Christians has nothing to do with Baptism. To be born again can be translated to mean “from above” or “again” It reveals that there must be a work from “above” a new birth. Born of water implies physical birth and born of the spirit refers to being born again spiritually. For christians this does not denote baptism and reception of the HOly Ghost as LDS teach.

    GB, simply put we don’t intpret the passages in the Bible the same way.

    None of these passages give any clear evidence that states anything else other than the blood of the Lamb is what grants us eternal life. For Christians, and speaking for myself — it is simply CHRIST – His work that saves us. Belief in Him and none other that saves and grants life eternal.

    My kids and I read John 10 today. Jesus made it very clear. He is the door — if any man enter in He shall be saved. Baptism is not the “door” as my kids were taught when they were in primary. Jesus is the door. John 10:9

    Jesus also said, ” He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up some other way the same is a thief and a robber”. John 10:1

    The door to salvation is Jesus.

    He knows His sheep and His sheep will not follow a stranger. verse 5

    We probaby are going to need to agree to disagree that we don’t view the teachings of the Bible the same way.

    Bottom line for me , is the blood of the Lamb is enough.

    Sincere Regards,

  164. April 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Jesus always always taught that *believing* in Him is was is required for Salvation. That has repeatedly been the message of salvation — the book of John spells that out very clearly . Belief in Jesus as Lord, the Son of God , the messiah is what grants eternal life. That has been the confession of Christians for generations and the testimony and witness of the apostles. That belief in HIM is what saves. As I said before, “if” the LDS beleive the same, great — then they really don’t have any problems with christians and should not be concerned about knocking on the doors of homes of Christians and telling them that their churches are in error and encouraging them to join the LDS and abandon their church. Right?

    Kind regards,

  165. April 14, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    I think my husband would agree with you — basically you are saying the same thing….and it is what the article of faith teaches:

    ‘we believe by the atonement of jesus christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.’

    According to this public confession by the LDS — eternal life is granted by Jesus + LDS ordinances and keeping of LDS laws.

    Christians also would point out that all mankind will most definately not be saved.

    Kind regards,

  166. 166 Brad
    April 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm


    And though I’m sure you see it, this is the great frustration that Christians (including ex-Mormons) have when conversing with Mormons. You have your husband, a Mormon, telling you that Jesus is NOT enough, openly admitting to that (and he’s right, b/c under Mormon beliefs, Jesus is NOT enough). Then, you’ll come on here, and you’ll have other people, also Mormons, telling that you it is solely based on Jesus, and when they see your story about your husband, they either tell you he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s flat out wrong.

    This is the great problem when conversing with Mormons – when different Mormons have different points of view about their own teachings, how do you know which Mormon to believe? Is it your husband the Mormon, or GB the Mormon?

    Further, as I’m sure you’ve seen, they all think they are following the correct Jesus anyhow, so it’s always an uphill battle. I rest assured knowing that the Word of God says that not all will be saved, and rest better knowing that it’s NOT my job to convert, only to tell. I thank God that He has not placed the burden of conversion on me, but rather on the Holy Spirit!

    I’ve tailed off on my blogging somewhat, Gloria, only b/c it gets highly frustrating at times. I’ve tried to limit it to those I see who have genuine questions, not those who there’s not much hope of converting (e.g. GB, Ladonna, etc…). It’s much more fruitful, but you really have to search for them harder, b/c they’re quieter. The GB’s and Ladonna’s of the world will still be there, but again, they answer for their actions.

    A phrase goes: on judgment day, for the Christian, it’s “Thy will be done.” For a non-Christian, it’s God saying “Thy will be done.” Unfortunately, too many will fall into that latter group. It’s hard to not be able to save them all, but we must realize that won’t happen, too, for there are many who simply will not be saved.

  167. April 14, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Hi, brad. The Ladonna’s and GB’s don’t bother me. I can understand their desires to defend what they believe is true. I can certainly see that view point expressed by the Jewish leaders during the time of Jesus – they held fast on to their religious views . Religionists will always be botherd and offended by the message of Christ crucified, it has always been the case and it will continue to be the case.
    I agree, many simply will not be saved.
    As my husband has told me, he doesn’t want to be in “my heaven” where we are all casting down our crowns before the throne singing ” Holy HOly Holy” to my husband and some other close LdS Friends they find that “boring” to be singing praise to Jesus all day. They want more… they want to be like God and have what he has ( kingdome, powers, principalities, etc.) So, you are right, many are called and few chosen.
    God bless,

  168. April 14, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Of course, we Mormons consider the modern equivalents of the Jewish leadership to be OUR opponents. Jesus was considered a heretic. A blasphemer for “adding” to God’s inerrant Torah. A dangerous element upsetting the established status quo.

    Now the Mormon is bound to ask “gee, where have I seen that before?”

  169. April 14, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    I would have to say it was not Jesus that “added” to God’s word – but the religionists. It was the job of the sanhedrin and pharasees to go over the law with a “fine tooth” comb and in doing so added to it. I would say that Jesus “fulfilled” rather than added, and the law was nailed to the cross. Jesus “delivered” us from the law. Romans 6:6

    Praise Him for that!


  170. 170 ladonnamorrell
    April 15, 2009 at 1:00 am


    Let me clarify your position. 1st: You don’t think that baptism is a necessary ordinance for salvation.

    2nd: You think that there is nothing required of you (or anyone) in order to gain eternal life in the kingdom of heaven, except simply confessing the Saviors name in belief.

    Does that correctly reflect your position?


Comments are currently closed.

April 2009

Blog Stats

  • 182,897 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 997 other followers

%d bloggers like this: