I tripped over the following blurb about Mormonism and Judaism on Wiki when I was looking for some other information:

"It [LDS Church] also teaches the belief that God is perpetually punishing the Jewish people for their part in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and they will not be forgiven until they are converted. Their conversion is connected to "the literal gathering of Israel", as stated in one of the faith's articles of faith."

I'm not surprised I didn't hear about this in church because when do they ever talk about actual doctrinal beliefs? If it happens in RS, I wouldn't know as they gave me a calling that kept me out of the women's meetings.

And if this has been a topic here at RfM I don't recall it at all.

I remember my JW friends striving to convert Jews. I can't now recall their doctrine in that regard either.

When I was going out on calls with Mormon missionaries they had a Jewish woman on their list. I remember having conversations about biblical doctrines with her and the missionaries were happy because, of course, they didn't know enough about the Bible, especially the OT, to be able to discuss it or answer her questions. I could tell that her husband, also Jewish, was desperate for us not to convert his wife, understandably. I don't know what happened to her. I hope she didn't join Mormonism, certainly not due to anything I may have "explained". Most of what I knew about the questions she was asking, enough to answer in some way, I had learned as a JW. That kind of made me laugh - an ex-JW helping Mormons try to convert a Jew.

But really - I hope she wrote us off as the clueless wonders that we were.

Meanwhile, does that Wiki entry accurately reflect the actual LDS teaching about Judaism? "Still being punished"? Have to be converted to Mormonism?

If this has been discussed on RfM before (a likely topic it seems) I either missed it or have forgotten it. In one way I'm glad my Mormon interlude is going down the memory hole. In another, I'm worried that my little grey cells are disappearing faster than I would ideally like.

I'm not sure I remember the Jews being punished, but I remember Mormons being assigned a tribe of Israel by their stake patriarch. It's kind of like Chinese declaring themselves Mexican.

I think whoever wrote that article got a little carried away with themselves.

I am not aware of any teaching that God is perpetually punishing Jews and they will not be forgiven until they convert. That was a popular trope during the Inquisition, and there are probably Mormons who do feel that way, but I don't think even sexist.racist drivel like Mormon Doctrine made that claim about Jews.

Mormons are rather fond of Jews and consider them "almost Mormon", and of course consider them to be gentiles. Ironic, that.

Jews are so close to the finish line. Mormons are baffled as to why Jews would be offended by having their temple work done posthumously.

>"It [LDS Church] also teaches the belief that God is perpetually punishing the Jewish people for their part in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and they will not be forgiven until they are converted. Their conversion is connected to "the literal gathering of Israel", as stated in one of the faith's articles of faith."

Definitely taught by LD$, Inc.

From the BoM

2 Nephi 10:3-8

"3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

4 For should the mighty miracles be wrought among other nations they would repent, and know that he be their God.

5 But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified.

6 Wherefore, because of their iniquities, destructions, famines, pestilences, and bloodshed shall come upon them; and they who shall not be destroyed shall be scattered among all nations.

7 But behold, thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance.

8 And it shall come to pass that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion, from the isles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth; and the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in carrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance."


From Bruce R. McConkie in "The Millennial Messiah" p.224-5


"Let this fact be engraved in the eternal records with a pen of steel: the Jews were cursed, and smitten, and cursed anew, because they rejected the gospel, cast out their Messiah, and crucified their King. ... Let the spiritually illiterate suppose what they may, it was the Jewish denial and rejection of the Holy One of Israel, whom their fathers worshiped in the beauty and holiness, that has made them a hiss and byword in all nations and that has taken millions of their fair sons and daughters to untimely graves. ... What sayeth the holy word? "They shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn the hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel. And because they turn their hearts aside,…and have despised the Holy One of Israel, they shall wander in the flesh, and perish, and become a hiss and by-word and be hated among all nations.

Hmmm. Apparently Cousin Brucie McC was more racist than I remembered.

Imagine what mormonism would be like if BRM had survived long enough to be the No.1 guy when he could have claimed that all of his ideas were directly from god, and thus officially doctrinal.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine what mormonism would be like if BRM had
> survived long enough to be the No.1 guy when he
> could have claimed that all of his ideas were
> directly from god, and thus officially doctrinal.

I'm not sure the church would be much different. Through the 1970s and 1980s, if my sources are reliable, the presence of Mormon Doctrine in virtually every home and missionary apartment meant that its teachings were accepted as definitive. The prophets back then didn't disavow it, did they?

To that extent the church must gradually distance itself from those old teachings and attempt to move toward the mainstream--just as it subsequently has.

>The prophets back then didn't disavow it, did they?

At least partially

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

"Apostle Mark E. Petersen said it was "full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation."

"Petersen "gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections" to the book."

"Nearly a year later, after meeting to discuss the book, the January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect:

"We [the First Presidency of the church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, 'Mormon Doctrine' recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."

"McKay called Joseph Fielding Smith on January 27, 1960, to inform him of the decision to ban further publication of the book:

[McKay] then said: 'Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie's book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors... are corrected.' Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, 'That is the best thing to do.'"

Oh yes, I am aware of that history.

The FP disavowed the book after its initial publication. But years later, when McKay was a frail old man, McConkie prevailed upon him to permit the issuance of new editions. From that point on the church had a book of doctrine written by one of the most powerful members of the first quorum of the seventy and entitled Mormon Doctrine. It was not many more years before the McConkie, his book in wide circulation, became an apostle.

Given that apostles are prophets, seers, and revelators, what were believers supposed to do? Were they to disbelieve things in an apostle's book that enjoyed the implicit sanction of the FP? What about after Spencer Kimball, who had participated in the revision of the second edition, became prophet? Could a believer then use his own mind to decide what was accurate and what not?

As a practical matter there was during the following decade plus no way members could safely challenge any of the book's assertions. The fact that it was omnipresent in the community meant that it was the de facto definition of LDS doctrine. The old 1950s debates over doctrine--the old "Mormonism"--were long gone.

That's why I think McConkie achieved 80 or 90 percent of what he wanted to do even though he never became prophet.

Imagine if they believed a person could be a god, and salesman prophet came along and said it was just a couplet.

They change sacred doctrines more than I change shoes.

    It was clearly understood as a
    doctrine in the church of my
    youth that there was nothing
    haphazard or uncertain about
    the circumstance of your birth
    ... you got what you earned
    during the Pre-Existence.  

    At the top were the mormons,
    most notably BICs.  It's easy
    to suppose that there's some
    kind of system handling the
    distribution of pre-existence
    wanna-be-borns to Earth, all
    based on their "War in Heaven"
    record...

    Under that system, knowing the
    circumstance of mormon's birth
    gives you an idea as to his/her
    respective rank and record dur-
    ing the pre-existence kerfuffle.

    For instance, take Steve Benson
    and me ...  We both came into
    contact with the church in the
    same year, 1954.  That's when he
    was BIC into a well-known mormon
    family, while I was starting to
    attend Primary as a nine-year-old
    wild-eyed Lamanite who'd moved in
    next door to the ward's bishop.

    Based on mormonism's understanding
    of things I must have had a fairly
    decent war record (probably in de-
    molition...) to have early access
    to the church, but Steve had to
    be a freakin' war hero!

    So if you got what you'd earned,
    as the lady said in the Wendy's
    commercial, "Where's the beef?"



    What would be, in human history,
    the absolute worst birth circum-
    stance?  Probably a lot of sit-
    uations could be imagined that
    we would all agree tied for the
    honor.  But we all escaped it.

    This mormon 'order of things'
    was somewhat a comfort back at
    that time, because I was a sen-
    sitive soul, and imagining that
    ghawd just randomly picked his
    kids' birth circumstances was
    a bit depressing.

    This is why I'm now comfortable
    being an Atheist and having the
    mental and moral foundation of
    "poop happens." Long live the
    Bell-Shaped Curve!

    But if there is a ghawd and the
    mormon view is correct, then I
    will just shrug my shoulders and
    tell those complaining that life
    is so unfair, "You should have
    followed orders during the war,
    ya big dummy!"

    And alas, all those poor, poor
    Fence Sitters!!  With all the
    emphasis on getting in peoples'
    faces, both here on earth and     
    and on the other side of the
    veil, weren't both sides doing
    missionary work amongst all the
    Fence Sitters?  They wouldn't
    have had missionaries visiting
    them, but recruiters!

    What if you'd been called to be
    a recruiter to the Fence Sitters
    but rather than going out and   
    preaching to them, you slept in
    and then went and played video
    games all day, and then phoned
    in phony stats to your DL?


    I'm comfortable either way; if
    there's a ghawd and he's got it
    all under control, that's fine.
    But if there is no ghawd and we
    are all Steel Balls (great name
    for a hero!) in a big pachinko
    machine, that's okay, too.

Oh, dear ;) --where to begin, where to begin???

Just on a purely pragmatic level, I am amazed that the Mormons would want us. Argument (think "debate") is one of the things Jews do best, and while Jews can--if called for--be illogical, they are also [usually] immensely logical...to the point where non-Jewish opponents usually, eventually, give up.

I was not aware that Jews in ancient times had anything to do with the crucifixion of Jesus--but, then, I've never had any interest in the subject either. (I am not educated on ancient Roman history, and I think it was Roman law that prevailed at that time and in that place.)

The "literal gathering of Israel" [I assume they mean the people Israel here] has been going on for round about four or five thousand years now (especially from the mid-1400s on)--and it continues to this day, both through birth (Jews born to a Jewish mother; Jewish fathers don't count as to "who is a Jew"), and through the Jewishly legal conversion of non-Jews into Jews.

No one who is not a Jew can be "assigned" to a tribe of Israel--that is ridiculous, and I've never heard of a contemporary Jew (either a born Jew or a convert to Judaism) claiming membership in such a tribe either.

This is all narishkeit ("foolishness").

So sayeth this absolutely, totally, Jewishly legal Jew.*

[*With much gratitude and many thanks to Irene Alberkrack (a Sephardic Jew by ancestry, who completely and totally unintentionally made me realize that I was "really" Jewish when we both were in 7th grade)...to the U.J. (the University of Judaism, through whose conversion program I legally converted to Judaism)...and to Rabbi Vorspan (my main teacher at the U.J., when I was going through the conversion process)]

I appreciate all the comments and info from everybody.

Tevai, your personal experience is always so interesting to read about.

Thanks to you all.

And wow did I miss the boat on learning about actual Mormon teachings. Before or after "converting". I used to joke that everything I know about Mormonism I learned at RfM following my Mormon interlude. But many jokes hold truth.

I was so happy to get away from it relatively unscathed.

Thank God (or whoever you prefer) I didn't marry a JW or a Mormon - it would have been so much trickier to get free. Both times I just walked away, no baggage.

Nobody ever came looking for me, from either faith, including all the "friends" I thought I had in both groups. So that says a lot about the depth of a friendship and also the unsavoury emphasis each group places on conversion efforts and numbers rather than genuine care and friendship.

As always, I must say again that with JWs they don't want people to convert quickly and join immediately like Mormons do. They'd rather have lower numbers and more informed joiners with whom there is a greater likelihood that they'll stick. I respect that approach more. With Mormons they start nagging immediately to get you into their font with the promise that all will be revealed, apparently magically, following baptism. But the magic fails to occur and if you ask questions you're told to bolster your faith and quit rocking the boat. Or that's how it came across to me.

Just as with the sky-high promises of enlightenment in the temple ceremony. My burning question following my first time through the temple in SLC was why does Satan get such a big part in the play? He seems to yak more than God does. Isn't that backwards?

I'm glad that conversion works out for some people, in any faith, if it enhances their life. For me, yeah - not so much.

I should have stuck with the christening ceremony I had in my mum's Catholic faith. I didn't remember it, it didn't hurt me, nobody ever expected me to show up anywhere and I obliged by not joining.

I should have left it at that.

But hey, you live and learn.

My Jewish FIL, a convert, was assigned to the Tribe of Judah in his patriarchal blessing. Years later, when DH started tracing his genealogy, he learned that his father was actually a Levite. DH's blessing said he would be blessed in Ephraim--something like that. Didn't give his lineage. Don't remember what tribe his mother, a convert to Judaism, was assigned. Think Ephraim.

Later, when DH consulted with a rabbi as to whether he should have a bar mitzvah to make sure he was truly Jewish, the rabbi said not necessary--he had a Jewish mother. She had taken the lessons and done the ceremonial steps to truly convert. This was a reform rabbi.

Maybe he should have a blood test to see whether he's a Levite, Jew, or adopted/rejected Ephraimite.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2023 11:26PM by Phantom Shadow.

Phantom Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My Jewish FIL, a convert, was assigned to the
> Tribe of Judah in his patriarchal blessing. Years
> later, when DH started tracing his genealogy, he
> learned that his father was actually a Levite.
> DH's blessing said he would be blessed in
> Ephraim--something like that. Didn't give his
> lineage. Don't remember what tribe his mother, a
> convert to Judaism, was assigned. Think Ephraim.
>
> Later, when DH consulted with a rabbi as to
> whether he should have a bar mitzvah to make sure
> he was truly Jewish, the rabbi said not
> necessary--he had a Jewish mother. She had taken
> the lessons and done the ceremonial steps to truly
> convert. This was a reform rabbi.
>
> Maybe he should have a blood test to see whether
> he's a Levite, Jew, or adopted/rejected
> Ephraimite.

Whether your FIL's mother was (according to Jewish law) a Jew AT THE MOMENT YOUR FIL WAS BORN would be my first question.

Since a rabbi vetted this, then she likely was, according to Jewish law, a Jew...but since a Reform rabbi was involved, there might also be some additional questions asked if your FIL ever needed to prove his Jewish bona fides. (For example: Your FIL decides to make aliyah [immigrate] to Israel as a Jew.)

There would certainly (I'm pretty sure) be some additional questions asked in a number of different possible situations involving both his life, and also at the time of his eventual death.

Gordon B. made all church doctrine a moving target in his television interview.

Mormons not only have semantic borrowing, but semetic borrowing as well.

When I served a mission in Brazil, pre-1978, there were quite a few Mormons who had joined thinking they had no African ancestry, but discovered after joining, usually through genealogy work, that they did have African ancestry.

[Brazil, especially central and northern Brazil, has significant, in some cases near universal, African ancestry among the residents. Parts of Brazil were not opened to missionaries until post-1978.]

If there was a conflict between the promises-declarations of a Patriarchal Blessing, and actual genealogy, genealogy won. I found that interesting.

And of course the "one drop" rule applied. Any amount of African ancestry overrode any and all other ancestry. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people in northern Brazil would not pass the one-drop test if they really looked into it, even if all their ancestry could be traced back to Portugal. I mean, you can actually see the tip of North Africa from the southern coast of Spain. Yes, N Africa is Arab, but they likely fail the one-drop rule too.

And technically, everyone on the planet fails the one-drop rule if you go back far enough.