Black and LDS

[zerinus]

The bible itself says that teachers are held to a higher standard.

Let me get this straight…a person claims to represent God in rebuilding a church lost for thousands of years. This person claims new revalation from God. This person screws up royaly.

And people are supposed to just forget about that.

There was no screw-up. The decision of the Church to deny the priesthood to blacks initially was correct at the time, and came by revelation to the leaders of the Church. The change was also correct and came by revelation. Neither case suggests any form of racism. We don’t know the reasons why God wanted it done that way. The mistakes that some early Church leaders had made was to try and speculate as to the possible reasons for it. Those speculations were nearly always incorrect, and should not have been made. But the actual decision came from the Lord, and was correct at the time that it was made. And it does not entail racism.

The founders of the Catholic church seems to be Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

Now if God wanted to start all over again, obviously he knew he had some big shoes to fill.
So you are trying to tell me he chose a poligamist and a racist???

Come on now!!!

What Jesus said in relation to Himself is equally applicable in relation to His Church:

John 6:

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The truth of Mormonism cannot be obtained by debate and discussion and speculation. It can only be known by revelation and personal testimony. Neither of us know enough about anything to be able to tell God what to do; or to say to Him, “Why have you done this?” or “Why have you not done that?” If you want to find those kinds of faults with God, there are plenty that you can find in the Bible. Why did God command the Israelites to go and kill off a whole bunch of innocent women and children? Why did He tell them to stone adulterers and burn witches? Why did Noah curse one of his sons (and all of his posterity) because he made a stupid mistake? Why was the Priesthood in Israel confined to the tribe of Levi, and all the rest denied the priesthood? These are all foolish excuses that anyone can bring (and lots of people have brought) in order to deny the truth. But the truth does not depend on who accepts it and who doesn’t. The truth is that God is real, and the Bible is His word; and He has put those things in it for reasons best known to Himself. We are free to reject them if we wish; but we do so at the peril of our lives. Mormonism exists on the same principles as that.

zerinus

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

There was no screw-up. The decision of the Church to deny the priesthood to blacks initially was correct at the time, and came by revelation to the leaders of the Church. The change was also correct and came by revelation. Neither case suggests any form of racism. We don’t know the reasons why God wanted it done that way. The mistakes that some early Church leaders had made was to try and speculate as to the possible reasons for it. Those speculations were nearly always incorrect, and should not have been made. But the actual decision came from the Lord, and was correct at the time that it was made. And it does not entail racism.

zerinus

Hi Z,

Hmmmmmmmmmm, ummmmmmm

( ??? ) think think think think, What ???

God bless,
Carl

 

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

Hmmmmmmmmmm, ummmmmmm

( ??? ) think think think think, What ???

God bless,
Carl

In other words, the truth leaves you speechless. I understand.

zerinus

 

[NewSeeker]

The decision of the Church to deny the priesthood to blacks initially was correct at the time, and came by revelation to the leaders of the Church.

The revelation ending the ban is documented as “Official Declaration - 2” at the end of the D&C. Where is the revelation initiating the ban documented?

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

The decision of the Church to deny the priesthood to blacks initially was correct at the time, and came by revelation to the leaders of the Church.

Which leader(s) received the revelation? Where? When?

 

[majick275]

The revelation ending the ban is documented as “Official Declaration - 2” at the end of the D&C. Where is the revelation initiating the ban documented?

NS

not exactly a “revelation” even. just a policy statement. the wording is interesting.

 

[why_me]

So the verses are only related to Native Americans. That means the issues with those of African descent was pure old fashioned Hatred. Good to know.

Why would the concept not apply to both? Was dark skin not the mark of Cain preserved through Ham’s wife?

The verses implied a group of people centered in the americas, most likely in central and parts of south america. The Africans from a certain ancestral line were denied the priesthood. There were many people of color with the priesthood.

I take it that you did not listen to the presentation that I linked…

 

[why_me]

So its talking about native americans…and yet african americans were kept out of the priesthood.probably just long enuff to ensure that the majority were caucasians…then later letting a few blacks join.

I could be wrong, but why else keep other races out of an organizations hierarchy?

Listen to the presentation that I linked. It will answer your questions. Hopefully you want answers.

It can be found on www.ldsgenesisgroup.org

ldsgenesisgroup.org/media.htm

 

[why_me]

Rule changed1978, Jazz came to Utah in 1979. We had the Utah Stars (ABA) before then (1970).

More likely that the LDS church was growing and they faced determining just how the local leaders would know, exactly, whether or not they should ordain a new convert of a darker skin hue into their priesthood.

I loved those red, white and blue basketballs. I was a New York Nets fan before the collaspe of the league

 

[why_me]

More likely that the LDS church was growing and they faced determining just how the local leaders would know, exactly, whether or not they should ordain a new convert of a darker skin hue into their priesthood.

No. If you listen to the presentation you will get a very balanced picture of blacks and the priesthood. It is a good presentation.

But it does seem that people still wish to believe what they believe which of course is okay…it does make them feel comfortable.

 

[majick275]

No. If you listen to the presentation you will get a very balanced picture of blacks and the priesthood. It is a good presentation.

But it does seem that people still wish to believe what they believe which of course is okay…it does make them feel comfortable.

no the presentation is propaganda. mormon doctrine as explained by mormon leaders has always been very clear. dark skin is mark those who are cursed by God for disobedience. some are cursed more than others and thus some people of color could hold the priesthood and not others. the reason why people were born into “cursed” lineages is because of their performance in the pre-existence. mormon doctrine is that we had a whole life before coming here and “earned” our place on earth by our actions. they also teach that our actions here on earth will determine our position in the next life. those who do the best will become gods themselves and participate in this ongoing cycle. those who fall short will stop at the level short of that that they “earned” and remain there forever.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There was no screw-up. The decision of the Church to deny the priesthood to blacks initially was correct at the time, and came by revelation to the leaders of the Church. The change was also correct and came by revelation.

All well and good, but please point out the exact revelation and doctrine that initially banned “all worthy males” from your priesthood.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No. If you listen to the presentation you will get a very balanced picture of blacks and the priesthood. It is a good presentation.

But it does seem that people still wish to believe what they believe which of course is okay…it does make them feel comfortable.

Is there a transcript somewhere…no speakers.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Is there a transcript somewhere…no speakers.

I thought I was they only one in this situation

 

[excaliber]

Listen to the presentation that I linked. It will answer your questions. Hopefully you want answers.

It can be found on www.ldsgenesisgroup.org

ldsgenesisgroup.org/media.htm

I looked at the first website…there was NO explanation.

Im still learning about mormonism as a sceptic…but this is a problem. Z made a good point about the old testament, yes God had Isreal do things that we don’t understand. There is one MAJOR difference.

There were not 40,000 denominations that the isrealites had to chose from. And God made it clear that he was leading that nation.

Today there are many denominations claiming to be from God. If you were in my shoes, you would research the history of those making these claims. You would see poligamists and then racists.

It seems that one of the mormon arguments is that,as long as we have members who are black its ok…as long as we have members who are women its ok.
Not a good argument, Jehovah’s witnesses have members who remain regardless of JW history.

The link spoke of a revalation for all worthy males…but that’s common sence.
Point is why were all worthy males, that just so happened to be
black, at a time when there just so happened to be a lot of racist…kept from the priesthood to begin with.

This looks obvious to me. It just so happened to be a white guy saying
God told him black people should be held back.

Then times change,and the mormon church will look realy bad
if it continues to be pro white.
So someone just so happens to get a revalation from God basicly saying its not good to suport racism anymore, so let some blacks in the priesthood.

To make matters worse, your saying this on a CATHOLIC website. The Catholic God has not changed in 2000 years. Would it not seem strange that mormons are saying God himself can’t figure out who he wants in the priesthood? What’s next, no asians in the priesthood?

 

[Chris-WA]

There was no screw-up. The decision of the Church to deny the priesthood to blacks initially was correct at the time, and came by revelation to the leaders of the Church. The change was also correct and came by revelation.

I know when they changed it in 1978, but where is the revelation that commanded the LDS church to forbid the priesthood to blacks? Where is that recorded?

Neither case suggests any form of racism.

Keep telling yourself that. Unfortunately your church’s own recorded history points completely in the other direction.

We don’t know the reasons why God wanted it done that way. The mistakes that some

early Church leaders had made was to try and speculate as to the possible reasons for it. Those speculations were nearly always incorrect, and should not have been made.
Zerinus, I love that you think yourself wise enough to decide when your prophets should have or shouldn’t have taught about something. Who are you to decide? Who are you to say that Joseph or Brigham shouldn’t have taught certain things? They were prophets, right? And stop using the word “speculate.” Joseph and Brigham didn’t say they were speculating. They didn’t get up in front of the church and say that “this next part of my discussion is my own human opinion and does not have to be believed.” LDS apologists use the word “speculate” as a get-out-of-jail-free card for anything the prophets taught as truth that is no longer accepted. If I want to know what was taught in the LDS church, I will read what people like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught themselves, and not rely on revisionist LDS apologists to re-label those teachings as “speculation.” I’m so tired of that lame attempt to make excuses for the prophets. You are in no position to say that your prophets were speculating. I wish all LDS would stop using this debate trick. It’s tired and it doesn’t hold water.

Do you care to educate us all as to when Gordon B. Hinkley was speculating at General Conference and when he was teaching truth? How about Thomas Monson? How about any of the other prophets? Don’t you see how rediculous the speculation card is? When you use it, you damage the integrity of that prophet, because you call into question the truth of what they taught to the flock. Who decides what is speculation? You? The original audience? You need to see it for what it really is: a revisionist attempt to excuse a prophet for teaching error and still uphold him as a true prophet. It really needs to stop, because it’s dishonest. If you really believe in this speculation thing, then you have to admit that the only time an LDS prophet can truly be believed is when he is recording scripture. Any time he tries to explain it in a sermon or teach anything, you can’t rely what he says because it could be speculation. And there’s not much value in that, is there?

 

[why_me]

Is there a transcript somewhere…no speakers.

I think that you can read the powerpoint part of the presentation. The speakers general follow the powerpoint but they do had some more details.

 

[why_me]

I know when they changed it in 1978, but where is the revelation that commanded the LDS church to forbid the priesthood to blacks? Where is that recorded?

Keep telling yourself that. Unfortunately your church’s own recorded history points completely in the other direction.

Zerinus, I love that you think yourself wise enough to decide when your prophets should have or shouldn’t have taught about something. Who are you to decide? Who are you to say that Joseph or Brigham shouldn’t have taught certain things? They were prophets, right? And stop using the word “speculate.” Joseph and Brigham didn’t say they were speculating. They didn’t get up in front of the church and say that “this next part of my discussion is my own human opinion and does not have to be believed.” LDS apologists use the word “speculate” as a get-out-of-jail-free card for anything the prophets taught as truth that is no longer accepted. If I want to know what was taught in the LDS church, I will read what people like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught themselves, and not rely on revisionist LDS apologists to re-label those teachings as “speculation.” I’m so tired of that lame attempt to make excuses for the prophets. You are in no position to say that your prophets were speculating. I wish all LDS would stop using this debate trick. It’s tired and it doesn’t hold water.

Do you care to educate us all as to when Gordon B. Hinkley was speculating at General Conference and when he was teaching truth? How about Thomas Monson? How about any of the other prophets? Don’t you see how rediculous the speculation card is? When you use it, you damage the integrity of that prophet, because you call into question the truth of what they taught to the flock. Who decides what is speculation? You? The original audience? You need to see it for what it really is: a revisionist attempt to excuse a prophet for teaching error and still uphold him as a true prophet. It really needs to stop, because it’s dishonest. If you really believe in this speculation thing, then you have to admit that the only time an LDS prophet can truly be believed is when he is recording scripture. Any time he tries to explain it in a sermon or teach anything, you can’t rely what he says because it could be speculation. And there’s not much value in that, is there?

General conference is generally a time when the lds leaders give counsel to the lds members. It is not doctrine but most lds do believe that what is said comes from god. But it is actually counsel and advice. But certainly not canonized doctrine unless it is specified as such.

JS and BY said much and much of what they said has been taken from other people’s memory and notes. For example, the lds church published a book called: The Words of Joseph Smith. But if I am not mistaken, it is based on what members recorded him to say. In some respects the book, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith may contain the same format, I believe. In the early days of the church, people were all over the place trying to figure it all out. But Z is right. What has been said was not canonized. The lds faith is quite different from the catholic faith that has a many paged catechism.

Mormon Doctrine took a stab at it, but it failed immediately upon publication as lds leaders disagreed with what was said inside that book.

 

[why_me]

I know when they changed it in 1978, but where is the revelation that commanded the LDS church to forbid the priesthood to blacks? Where is that recorded?

You can listen to the presentation if you truly want answers.

 

[why_me]

no the presentation is propaganda. mormon doctrine as explained by mormon leaders has always been very clear. dark skin is mark those who are cursed by God for disobedience. some are cursed more than others and thus some people of color could hold the priesthood and not others. the reason why people were born into “cursed” lineages is because of their performance in the pre-existence. mormon doctrine is that we had a whole life before coming here and “earned” our place on earth by our actions. they also teach that our actions here on earth will determine our position in the next life. those who do the best will become gods themselves and participate in this ongoing cycle. those who fall short will stop at the level short of that that they “earned” and remain there forever.

The presenters are not mormon leaders. Did you listen to it?