Sharing the good news with Mormons

You are great at finding good deals.  Thanks!

I wish we’d see some movement on the CP Mormonism collection. It would be useful in showing the alterations of their beliefs compared to the current version 

For those of you enjoying this book, they wrote some additional chapters and placed them online.  They had more planned but scrapped them.

https://www.mrm.org/sharing-with-mormons 

Bonus Chapters (Available only on this site)

The following are additional chapters to Sharing the Good News with Mormons.

• Sharon Lindbloom: Good News for Mormon Women: The Overcoming Obstacles Approach
• Joel Groat: Exploring Mormon Racism: The All-Are-Justified-the-Same Approach
• Eric Johnson: The Gospel Topics Essays: The Dynamite Approach 
• Chip Thompson:  Real People and Real Places: The Biblical Archaeological Approach
• Bill McKeever: When the Doorbell Rings: Another Missionaries-at-Your Door Approach
• Fred Anson: Two are Better than One: The Tag Team Approach
• Eric Johnson: Combating Poor Biblical Interpretation: The Putting-Verses-Back-Into-Their-Context Approach
• Rob Sivulka: Examining Mormonism’s Founder: The What-Did-Joseph-Smith-Lie-About Approach

I've been able to stay out of this so far, but as the resident Latter-day Saint here... well, the assertion quoted below is either carelessly sloppy or bearing false witness. It's the kind of low quality one tends to find in Evangelical witnessing/counter-cult books like this. If you want some responsible scholarship on what Latter-day Saints *actually* think and *actually* believe, I suggest this thread. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/88557.aspx 

David Wanat said:

One example is, the most recent version of Doctrine and Covenants hides their rather racist past teachings on blacks and says it's a mystery why they were ever prevented from being priests, hiding the fact that in the past their Doctrine and Covenants explicitly barred them.

As there has never been a section of the Doctrine & Covenants codifying what LDS refer to as "the priesthood and temple ban," no such section existed to be secretly removed. (Try this book from Oxford Press for the relevent LDS history.) You can, however, read the canonized Official Declaration #2 in the Pearl of Great Price revoking this ban.

I note that I have corrected *you* before on this false claim, so instead of repeating myself, I will point people to that comment where I provide a brief discussion of useful paradigmatic differences between LDS and Protestants, and a number of links to holographs of original documents, where people can do their own text criticism to their heart's content. https://community.logos.com/forums/p/48213/886876.aspx#886876 

David Wanat said:

why they were ever prevented from being priests, hiding the fact that in the past their Doctrine and Covenants explicitly barred them.

Unfortunately I am not Black so I do not know how I would have felt towards the prior stand.  But I was studying with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and was with two black couples when that "change" took place.  At the time they also gave the reasons of the prior and the changed readings.  Those couples were the ones that explained both stands to me.  They accepted the changes and the explanation for the prior stand.  Sometimes why you do something is more important than what you do.

David Wanat said:

[EDIT] I think you're nitpicking over the fact that I misidentified the book, but avoiding the greater issue. I believe I accurately described the disconnect between past racist teaching and the 1978 revision. 

I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news, but most religions and varients have stuffed closets of skeletons. And, considerably more recent than the Latter Day Saints. Debates have to weave carefully to avoid the obvious.

David Wanat said:

[EDIT] I think you're nitpicking over the fact that I misidentified the book, but avoiding the greater issue. I believe I accurately described the disconnect between past racist teaching and the 1978 revision. 

No, you didn’t just “misidentify the book.” You engaged in accusations of ignorance and conspiracy mongering. Moreover, such ”disconnects” and changes are expected (though not necessarily comfortable) in a religion which preaches ongoing revelation and an open canon. (Jesus, Peter, and the kosher laws, anyone?); Mormonism is NOT Protestant, and if you approach or critique as if it were, you distort in fundamental ways. Richard Mouw gets that (see my previous link.)

ETA: And this is particularly frustrating, since I corrected you on this several years ago, providing bulletproof academic sources on LDS racial history AND text-criticism of LDS texts, all of which apparently fell on deaf ears. 

Mattillo said:

For those of you enjoying this book, they wrote some additional chapters and placed them online.  They had more planned but scrapped them.

https://www.mrm.org/sharing-with-mormons

Thanks Mattillo, as a former Mormon who's roots go back to Palmyra... I find this stuff fascinating and look forward to reading these other chapters.

Ben said:

As there has never been a section of the Doctrine & Covenants codifying what LDS refer to as "the priesthood and temple ban," no such section existed to be secretly removed. (Try this book from Oxford Press for the relevent LDS history.) You can, however, read the canonized Official Declaration #2 in the Pearl of Great Price revoking this ban.

I’m wondering if there Is there is an official document of the LDS church where the church apologizes for it’s racist history? The Church of England and the Southern Baptists have issued public apologies.

MJ. Smith said:

s ".... get off calling a church racist by framing it as a question?" That's a beating your wife question ... i.e. fallacy hound is tugging hard at his leash.

No disrespect MJ, but in this case the history is beyond question and tugging even gently on the leash will reveal not a fallacy hound but an “elephant in the room”. The question remains... has there been an apology? I am not aware of one. The beaten wife and the rest of her family at the very least deserve an apology!

MWW said:

  I’m wondering if there Is there is an official document of the LDS church where the church (...) 

I was attending a local branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when the "change" was made.  Several Black members that I was attending with accepted the comments on the subject made at the time.  I do not know where you could find copies of what was handed out at that time.  [I had copies but I gave all of my resources from that church to a member of that church that needed a larger library when I left]

PetahChristian said:

We get offended easily. We hold onto our anger. We don’t forgive until we get an apology.

Certainly that can be true. But I don't believe 126 years of racial discrimination is being easily offended and apologies to and forgiveness from is certainly not required from me, but from the offended parties, primarily that being God and the Lord Jesus. 

(1 Timothy 5:20–21) ²⁰ Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.  ²¹ I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.