What religious background has the highest probability of converting to Mormonism?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

It's getting pretty tough to find any statements on this topic using Google (someone appears to be vigorously enforcing their copyright on Packer's Mormon Doctrine).

I'm really skeptical of that. Quoting just McConkie's statement from the 1st edition is well within fair use. It's a rather short few sentences. Now if you start publishing extended multipage stuff that's different. However that's not really necessary.

 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

It's getting pretty tough to find any statements on this topic using Google (someone appears to be vigorously enforcing their copyright on Packer's Mormon Doctrine).  But without quoting any of it, Wikipedia tells you this on the subject: 

In later printings of the second edition, changes were made to doctrinal statements regarding black people in the pre-mortal life. The 1969 printing retained the controversial statements, but printings of the second edition by 1978 reflected the new church policy.

That will suffice for your CFR.  Evidence that the words were there--even thought I can't quote them.  If anyone knows of citations from Mormon Doctrine that are still out there, please share.  If it requires encryption and a special browser, count me out.

;0)

--Erik

________________________________________________

He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.

--George Orwell, 1984

Here is the quote you are looking for. It is under the section entitled "Negros" on pages 476-477 in the first edition, and most of the same wording can be found in the 1966 second edition under the same section on pages 526-527. I do not have access to later printings so I do not know what was removed.

 

Quote

In the pre-existent eternity various degrees of valiance and devotion to the truth were exhibited by different groups of our Father's spirit offspring....

Of the two-thirds that followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others. Adam and all the prophets so distinguished themselves by diligence and obedience as to be foreordained to their high earthly missions. The whole house of Israel was chosen in pre-existence to come to mortality as children of Jacob. Those who were less valiant in pre-existance and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are know to us as the negros. (Italics in the original) Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin....

The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord....

The negros are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.

 

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's getting pretty tough to find any statements on this topic using Google (someone appears to be vigorously enforcing their copyright on Packer's Mormon Doctrine).

Really? I thought it was McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

  But without quoting any of it, Wikipedia tells you this on the subject: 

In later printings of the second edition, changes were made to doctrinal statements regarding black people in the pre-mortal life. The 1969 printing retained the controversial statements, but printings of the second edition by 1978 reflected the new church policy.

That will suffice for your CFR.  Evidence that the words were there--even thought I can't quote them.  If anyone knows of citations from Mormon Doctrine that are still out there, please share.  If it requires encryption and a special browser, count me out.

Well no, it won't. I specifically asked for substantiation regarding your "fence-sitter" claim. "Controversial statements" doesn't do it.

Note that CA Steve has done your work for you, and no "fence-sitter" or similar concepts are found therein.

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

________________________________________________

He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.

--George Orwell, 1984

That sounds like a good description of the anti-Mormon agenda.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Here is the quote you are looking for. It is under the section entitled "Negros" on pages 476-477 in the first edition, and most of the same wording can be found in the 1966 second edition under the same section on pages 526-527. I do not have access to later printings so I do not know what was removed.

Quote

Those who were less valiant in pre-existance and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are know to us as the negros. (From Mormon Doctrine.)

Thank you Steve. 

So, no "fence-sitter" assertions in view.

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Thank you Steve. 

So, no "fence-sitter" assertions in view.

I should have paid more attention to the issue of fence-sitting because I unintentionally omitted a part of McConkie's Mormon  Doctrine passage on "Negroes" that directly addresses that.  Here it is, and is found on page 476 of the 1st addition.

Quote

One-third of the spirit hosts of heaven came out in open rebellion and were cast out without bodies, becoming the devil and his angels. The other two-thirds stood affirmatively for Christ; there were no neutrals. To stand neutral in the midst of war is a philosophical impossibility.

I am not sure what is gained or lost here by distinguishing between theoretical fence sitters or those who simply were not as valiant. In my opinion it is just one of degree. Okay so instead of standing idly by, McConkie is stating that the Negroes did not do as much as other groups. He is still using skin color as a sign of bad behavior in the pre-existence.Is it somehow supposed to be less troublesome  to say they were just less valiant instead of just standing on the sidelines?

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by CA Steve

[ALarson]

20 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am not sure what is gained or lost here by distinguishing between theoretical fence sitters or those who simply were not as valiant. 

I think "fence-sitter" is better than how some leaders portrayed them in the preexistence:

Quote

"This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa…in spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

- Mark E. Petersen

Quote

 

"Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? ...[C]an we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Latter-day Saints. ...A Chinese born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity.

- Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church," Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

 

Quote

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage."

- Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition

B.H. Roberts did use the word "indifference" when describing them in the preexistence:

Quote

[T]hrough their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, [blacks] rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers...."

- - LDS Historian B. H. Roberts, The Contributor, vol. 6, pp.

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Gray]

It turns out the ideal background for conversion to Mormonism is Strontium:

https://www.theonion.com/byu-scientists-convert-matter-into-mormonism-1819563980

 

[ALarson]

There were also these types of talks that members heard from their leaders:

Quote

 

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin.

But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom.

What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm.

- General Conference address by Elder George F. Richards (April 1939, Second Day Morning Session)

 

So, it's understandable why there was some confusion about the teachings regarding this, IMO.

Edited February 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I should have paid more attention to the issue of fence-sitting because I unintentionally omitted a part of McConkie's Mormon  Doctrine passage on "Negroes" that directly addresses that.  Here it is, and is found on page 476 of the 1st addition.

I am not sure what is gained or lost here by distinguishing between theoretical fence sitters or those who simply were not as valiant. In my opinion it is just one of degree. Okay so instead of standing idly by, McConkie is stating that the Negroes did not do as much as other groups. He is still using skin color as a sign of bad behavior in the pre-existence.Is it somehow supposed to be less troublesome  to say they were just less valiant instead of just standing on the sidelines?

 

In a war between good and evil, it matters a great deal that one chooses sides.

Fencesitters either don't care who wins or loses or they only care for themselves and want to be on the winning side and wait until it becomes obvious and then commit.

------

"Less valiant"....well, are there many of us here on a day to day basis getting up and ensuring we are on the front lines of the battles against poverty, ignorance (anyone volunteer at schools or local libraries to help with illiteracy?), hate, etc?  Are we leaders or followers and if the latter, are we willing to dig in deep or are we satisfied with a superficial gesture once or twice a month and maybe a grand one at Christmas when it would be more awkward not to do something than to do it.

Doesn't take much to be "less valiant".

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

In a war between good and evil, it matters a great deal that one chooses sides.

Fencesitters either don't care who wins or loses or they only care for themselves and want to be on the winning side and wait until it becomes obvious and then commit.

------

"Less valiant"....well, are there many of us here on a day to day basis getting up and ensuring we are on the front lines of the battles against poverty, ignorance (anyone volunteer at schools or local libraries to help with illiteracy?), hate, etc?  Are we leaders or followers and if the latter, are we willing to dig in deep or are we satisfied with a superficial gesture once or twice a month and maybe a grand one at Christmas when it would be more awkward not to do something than to do it.

Doesn't take much to be "less valiant".

All hypothetical here, especially if McConkie was correct about there not being any  neutral parties but I think there are more reasons for not choosing than the two you offer. They may just have been reluctant to fight like Quakers, they may have had close relations on both side of the war and choose not to fight against both of them, they may not have made a decision on it yet and were still weighing what was going on. We really have no idea, but to say they would have done so purely out of a selfish individual motive is not necessary true. 

And yes it doesn't take much to be less valiant but it also can mean it involved a lot, we have no idea.

[kiwi57]

21 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I should have paid more attention to the issue of fence-sitting because I unintentionally omitted a part of McConkie's Mormon  Doctrine passage on "Negroes" that directly addresses that.  Here it is, and is found on page 476 of the 1st addition.

I am not sure what is gained or lost here by distinguishing between theoretical fence sitters or those who simply were not as valiant. In my opinion it is just one of degree. Okay so instead of standing idly by, McConkie is stating that the Negroes did not do as much as other groups. He is still using skin color as a sign of bad behavior in the pre-existence.Is it somehow supposed to be less troublesome  to say they were just less valiant instead of just standing on the sidelines?

Actually it is; doing something versus doing something more is a difference of degree; doing something versus doing nothing at all is a difference of category. But that's beside the point. What is called for here is accuracy, otherwise it is just an exercise in playing the race card for polemical purposes. The "fence-sitter" claim is not true.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

All hypothetical here, especially if McConkie was correct about there not being any  neutral parties but I think there are more reasons for not choosing than the two you offer. They may just have been reluctant to fight like Quakers, they may have had close relations on both side of the war and choose not to fight against both of them, they may not have made a decision on it yet and were still weighing what was going on. We really have no idea, but to say they would have done so purely out of a selfish individual motive is not necessary true. 

And yes it doesn't take much to be less valiant but it also can mean it involved a lot, we have no idea.

This is if you view the war in heaven as if it was taking place here on earth with real weapons that killed etc.  There was no death or maiming that we know of.  It comes across as a power struggle, it might have been solely a war of words.

Would people like Quakers keep themselves out of all conflicts or do they make stands and contibute to works they believe are good?  Quakers fought against slavery by becoming abolitionists and actively opposed slavery by speaking out against it and some were even involved the Underground Railroad.  That is hardly fence-sitting.

It is possible that at the time the "war" began it, there were those who did not view it as a choice between right and wrong or good and evil, but merely a choice between leaders who would get you to where you wanted to go or over how we were to progress.  Even if God made it obviously clear from his position, there may have been those who allowedthemselves to be blinded by Satan's claims.

Quote

"And yes it doesn't take much to be less valiant but it also can mean it involved a lot, we have no idea"

Of course...so to condemn solely on the phrase "less valiant" seems to me an overreaction.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Calm

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

There were also these types of talks that members heard from their leaders:

 

So, it's understandable why there was some confusion about the teachings regarding this, IMO.

I have a confession to make: I'd not heard of George F. Richards before.

And 1939. That's 79 years ago now.

I'm not sure that an obscure talk made long before most members were born has much influence nowadays.

And given that Elder Richards was very tentative about what he admitted was his own speculation, it hardly seems to justify the rather bold and unqualified assertions about "fence-sitters" that get regularly trotted out, does it?

[mfbukowski]

On 2/4/2018 at 2:22 PM, cinepro said:

I don't know, but I can understand why it would be so hard to convince someone of the claims of Mormonism based on the feeling they get when reading the Book of Mormon, and why it might be a lot harder if they know about the imperfections of Joseph Smith and early Church leaders.

 

That's right.  You don't know.  When you get that whammy the way I did,  there is no doubt even for me.  I don't get it either but it happened.  And for me, Scientology made more sense at the time.  I had even held the tin cans and gotten questioned - whatever that is called.

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually it is; doing something versus doing something more is a difference of degree; doing something versus doing nothing at all is a difference of category. But that's beside the point. What is called for here is accuracy, otherwise it is just an exercise in playing the race card for polemical purposes. The "fence-sitter" claim is not true.

I will gladly take correction the phase "fence-sitters" was imprecise.  I should have used the phases "less valiant" and "possibly neutral" to properly express senior LDS leadership teachings regarding African Americans and others of African descent vis-a-vis the LDS War in Heaven between the LDS Jesus and the LDS idea of Lucifer.  I beg the court to consider I spent formative years in Southern Utah in the 1980s--and thereby consider this a mitigating circumstance in my sentencing.  I didn't make up the expression "fence sitter" in this context, I only repeated what I heard. 

At this point, it may be worth recalling my intent was to help 3DOP understand how the LDS leaders he admired differed from the popes he likewise admired.  Despite my imprecision, I trust my point was not utterly lost along the way.  The notion that all humans have equal dignity and worth is a vital teaching of Christianity, Imago Dei.  And that we are all equally fallen is likewise an essential doctrine of Christianity (e.g., Romans 3:23).  To my knowledge, no pope has ever asserted otherwise.  No pope has ever argued one group of people enjoyed an enhanced standing in the eyes of God & men, whether due to pre-existent valiance or any other reason that could be identified by racial markers. 

And if I'm wrong about that--well, I'll then retract my whole argument and ask forgiveness.  

--Erik

PS.  I'm afraid I've derailed my whole thread--and I've nobody to blame but myself...

[Avatar4321]

On 2/4/2018 at 8:10 PM, 3DOP said:

Okay...I think I get it now. Never Mormon. "a faith that was never yours." Why would I argue for old Mormonism? Only because its closer to Old Catholicism. I think Bruce McConkie and Dan Peterson are closer to my faith than Pope Francis. And I think Pope Francis is (sadly) closer to New Mormonism than the grandparents of most of today's Mormons. This explains to me why Pope Francis is so popular among New Mormons. Those who care about continuity will always be at odds with those who don't.

This might seem random. I can explain later if there is interest. But I am not interested in a faith that was false until the 21st Century. That seems to me to be what modern Mormonism and modern Catholicism propose. Before I could believe modern Mormonism or modern Catholicism was true, I would believe in God, and be a Restorationist-In-Waiting. (Not here yet) I would be kinda Mormon? No? heh. But instead, I believe what the Catholic Church has continuously taught, rejecting all novelties.

What do you mean with new Mormonism? Because I go to conference and study my scriptures and go to church each week and I see the same Mormonism I see in the sermons of Joseph and Brigham

[kiwi57]

 

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think "fence-sitter" is better than how some leaders portrayed them in the preexistence:

B.H. Roberts did use the word "indifference" when describing them in the preexistence:

 

Wow, you've got all the usual prooftexts on speed-dial, haven't you? I've never seen such a well-thumbed pack of race cards!

Question, though: why is "historian" in scare quotes next to B. H. Roberts' name? Does anyone seriously doubt that he was one? After all, he did write and publish more than one history. Isn't that what historians do?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

What do you mean with new Mormonism? Because I go to conference and study my scriptures and go to church each week and I see the same Mormonism I see in the sermons of Joseph and Brigham

You and I both, mate.

It would appear that we just can't please some people. If they don't think the Church is changing enough (or fast enough, or in the 'right' direction), then it must be because the current prophets have given up on receiving revelations -- in contrast to, you know, Joseph Smith.

And if the Church changes at all, well that must be because we have somehow abandoned original 'Mormonism' -- in contrast to, you know, Joseph Smith.

When it comes to a 'true and living church', it appears that heads: we lose, and tails: we lose. And this seems to hold true whether our critics are secular or sectarian. 

I remember one of our Evangelical critics some years back asking why the 21st-century Church of Jesus Christ doesn't look more like the New Testament Church. I asked him which New Testament Church. He didn't get it -- incapable, it would seem, of seeing the growth and development of the Church over the three-year ministry of the Saviour and then as led by the apostles through revelation.

Revelation through authorised prophets and apostles is 'Mormonism', old, new and forever. And in and through it all is the invitation to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him -- the message of all prophets in all dispensations and in all places.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I have a confession to make: I'd not heard of George F. Richards before.

George Franklin Richards (February 23, 1861 – August 8, 1950) was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from April 9, 1906 until his death. He also served as Acting Presiding Patriarch of the LDS Church from 1937 to 1942 and President of the Quorum of the Twelve from May 25, 1945 until his death.

His Father (Franklin D.) was also an Apostle and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

George was LeGrand Richards Father.

 

Quote

 

I'm not sure that an obscure talk made long before most members were born has much influence nowadays.

And given that Elder Richards was very tentative about what he admitted was his own speculation, it hardly seems to justify the rather bold and unqualified assertions about "fence-sitters" that get regularly trotted out, does it?

 

I just quoted it to show that even some leaders were somewhat confused about blacks being neutral in the preexistence (as an example of why members may have become confused as well....especially considering that talk was given in conference and put in print for members to read).

I agree that it was not taught.

Edited February 7, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Wow, you've got all the usual prooftexts on speed-dial, haven't you? I've never seen such a well-thumbed pack of race cards!

No...there are many to chose from.  A quick google search brought those right up and I posted a few as an example of what leaders had stated.  Took all of about a minute to do.

Want me to post more?

Edited February 7, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Question, though: why is "historian" in scare quotes next to B. H. Roberts' name? Does anyone seriously doubt that he was one? After all, he did write and publish more than one history. Isn't that what historians do?

I didn't notice that (I just copied it from the website as they'd written the source).  I can change that if it bothers you.  

ETA:

Done (they are now gone).

Edited February 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I will gladly take correction the phase "fence-sitters" was imprecise.  I should have used the phases "less valiant" and "possibly neutral" to properly express senior LDS leadership teachings regarding African Americans and others of African descent vis-a-vis the LDS War in Heaven between the LDS Jesus and the LDS idea of Lucifer.  I beg the court to consider I spent formative years in Southern Utah in the 1980s--and thereby consider this a mitigating circumstance in my sentencing.  I didn't make up the expression "fence sitter" in this context, I only repeated what I heard. 

At this point, it may be worth recalling my intent was to help 3DOP understand how the LDS leaders he admired differed from the popes he likewise admired.  Despite my imprecision, I trust my point was not utterly lost along the way.  The notion that all humans have equal dignity and worth is a vital teaching of Christianity, Imago Dei.  And that we are all equally fallen is likewise an essential doctrine of Christianity (e.g., Romans 3:23).  To my knowledge, no pope has ever asserted otherwise.  No pope has ever argued one group of people enjoyed an enhanced standing in the eyes of God & men, whether due to pre-existent valiance or any other reason that could be identified by racial markers. 

And if I'm wrong about that--well, I'll then retract my whole argument and ask forgiveness.  

--Erik

PS.  I'm afraid I've derailed my whole thread--and I've nobody to blame but myself...

What about equal dignity and worth regardless of gender or sexual orientation? How does that Catholic church come down on that issue?

[cinepro]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

What do you mean with new Mormonism? Because I go to conference and study my scriptures and go to church each week and I see the same Mormonism I see in the sermons of Joseph and Brigham

Just to be clear, do you happen to live in rural southern Utah?

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Question, though: why is "historian" in scare quotes next to B. H. Roberts' name? Does anyone seriously doubt that he was one? After all, he did write and publish more than one history. Isn't that what historians do?

He wasn't a trained historian. Of course lots of people write history who aren't trained historians and no one puts scare quotes around their names. Go to a MHA meeting and there's lots of people doing history without a degree.

[Avatar4321]

On 2/7/2018 at 12:39 PM, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, do you happen to live in rural southern Utah?

Never