Blacks and the LDS/Mormon Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Still no Mormon posters… ?

:hmmm:
they know better.

Once they respond with the weak apologetics, I respond with a list of all the incredibly racist quotes from their alleged prophets. They have no response when their very prophets are the ones who were racist.
 
they know better.

Once they respond with the weak apologetics, I respond with a list of all the incredibly racist quotes from their alleged prophets. They have no response when their very prophets are the ones who were racist.
I’m just trying to imagine a thread questioning Catholic doctrine or practices that I would completely ignore because I was afraid to go there. I don’t care if it is the Inquisition or the Crusades or burning people at the stake. We need to be open and honest about what happened and why it happened and not run and hide.

But then again, it isn’t easy to defend the indefensible. Not sure what I would do if I were Mormon, except acknowledge that it is indefensible and leave.
 
I’m just trying to imagine a thread questioning Catholic doctrine or practices that I would completely ignore because I was afraid to go there. I don’t care if it is the Inquisition or the Crusades or burning people at the stake. We need to be open and honest about what happened and why it happened and not run and hide.

But then again, it isn’t easy to defend the indefensible. Not sure what I would do if I were Mormon, except acknowledge that it is indefensible and leave.
how do you defend it?

You say, “it is racist to deny the priesthood to blacks and why was it taught they would turn white if they were good?”

They deny it.

Then you show them the thread of horrific racists comments by those like BY and you show them how the bom was changed to reflect the fact that people were NOT turning white…

Then they say…

what exactly?
 
The core story of the Book of Mormon is racist. It’s about a family in which two of the sons turned bad. God therefore cursed them with a dark skin. Dark skin, according to the Book of Mormon is a curse from God. There is no way Mormons can deny this fact. And the only way they can distance themselves from it is to denounce the Book of Mormon. But how do they do that when for decades they’ve claimed it’s “the keystone of our religion,” and “the most perfect book”? Some more thoughts to ponder: The following quote: Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report 1960, Improvement ERA, December 1960, pages 922-923
 
“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today… The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”

Why is whiter skin color associated with righteousness? Isn’t that racism? A few more quotes from church leaders:

“Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES.” LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – As They Affect The Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book entitled, “The Changing World of Mormonism,” p. 307, emphasis added.

“Those who were LESS VALIANT IN PRE-EXISTENCE and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the NEGROES.” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, …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 [the Mormon pre-existence].” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 – 528, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“We’ve always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, “Well, I know of exceptions.” I do, too, and they’ve been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, “I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race.” I say, “Yes–exceptions.” Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman’s near-scriptural statement, “We’d like to follow the rule first, and then we’ll take care of the exceptions.” LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, from the talk “Follow the Rule” given at Brigham Young University, 1/14/77.

“I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves…
 
“I am a firm believer in slavery…Those servants want to come here with their masters…and they commence to whisper round their views upon the subject, saying ‘Do you think it’s right? I am afraid it is not right’. I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their master, because they are not capable of ruling themselves…I am firm in the belief that they ought to dwell in servitude…

“When a master has a negro, and uses him well, he is much better off than when he is free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have, but good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that.”

(Speech by Brigham Young delivered in joint session of the legislature, Friday, Jan. 23rd, 1852, recorded by Geo. D. Watt, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church).

“If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are.”

“Again to the subject before us: as to the negro men bearing rule, not one of the children of old Cain have one particle of right to bear rule in government affairs from first to last. They have no business there. This privilege was taken from them by their own transgressions, and I cannot help it.

“I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term – it is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants…”

“Therefore, I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate (to) me or my brethren with regard to church or state government…No, it is not right. But say some, is there anything of this kind in the constitution the United States has given us? If you will allow me the privilege of telling it right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do, it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it. It is written right in the constitution ‘that every free white male inhabitant above the age of 21 years’, and etc…I have given you the true principle and doctrine.

“What the Gentiles are doing, we are consenting to do [he’s referring to the “evil” abolitionist effort going on in the USA at the time]. What we are trying to do today is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privileges. My voice shall be against it all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment.”

(Speech in joint session, Feb. 5, 1852, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church)

A little food for thought
 
We need to be open and honest about what happened and why it happened and not run and hide.

But then again, it isn’t easy to defend the indefensible. Not sure what I would do if I were Mormon, except acknowledge that it is indefensible and leave.
The LDS church can’t be totally open and honest about its past, because it would essentially be admitting that past prophets and apostles were, in fact, not inspired or in direct communication with God. The best defense Apostle Bruce R. McConkie could come up with regarding blacks and the priesthood was this…

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation…

So an “Apostle” of the Lord’s best defense was…“well, just ignore what I said.” If they can’t even defend their own documented doctrinal positions, how can any other member do any better?
 
Doesn’t that just mean that current revelation trumps past revelation? Can a past prophet bind a future prophet?
 
Doesn’t that just mean that current revelation trumps past revelation? Can a past prophet bind a future prophet?
The current prophet always has precedence over past prophets. Pres. Benson said “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.” Of course, it would be interesting to know how far back a current prophet can overrule prior prophets, since that group would also include prophets from the Book of Mormon/Bible.
 
The current prophet always has precedence over past prophets. Pres. Benson said “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.” Of course, it would be interesting to know how far back a current prophet can overrule prior prophets, since that group would also include prophets from the Book of Mormon/Bible.
yes…because in the lds church, truth changes. Truth is a moving target. And you cannot trust prophets because what they say is a death away from being changed.
 
Must take a lot of effort, switching mental gears all the time. Throwing the old prophet under the bus when doctrine changes.
 
I don’t understand then how anyone can truly be a mormon after I’ve read all this. If past prophets and their teachings can be overridden and ignored as false or wrong, then how can the mormon faithful trust anything current prophets are saying? How can you trust God if his doctrines to the people are not constant? Don’t mormons believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (somewhere in the BOM I think), and that He is not a God of confusion, but of Truth? Seems kinda crazy to put your faith and hope in a Truth, that is one moment absolute doctrine and necessary, and then 50 years later a taboo teaching. Truth either IS, or it ISN’T.
 
I don’t understand then how anyone can truly be a mormon after I’ve read all this. If past prophets and their teachings can be overridden and ignored as false or wrong, then how can the mormon faithful trust anything current prophets are saying? How can you trust God if his doctrines to the people are not constant? Don’t mormons believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (somewhere in the BOM I think), and that He is not a God of confusion, but of Truth? Seems kinda crazy to put your faith and hope in a Truth, that is one moment absolute doctrine and necessary, and then 50 years later a taboo teaching. Truth either IS, or it ISN’T.
This thread is just the tip of the iceberg.

In answer to your questions about god the same today and yesterday, did you know the believe god was a sinful man that progressed to be a god.

Search some of the old threads, and you’ll be even more amazed. 👍
 
Still no Mormon posters… ?

:hmmm:
I’m not your typical Mormon, but I’ll weigh in with some thoughts.

First, it’s no surprise that other posters have not come forward to defend either the priesthood ban or some of the things Brigham Young taught. I wouldn’t expect them to since it seems that the point of the recent statement relieves them of any obligation too. Nor will you find me defending the priesthood ban or previous church teachings. They were wrong. Racism is wrong. There is not much more to say than that.

Second, the statement is really much more of a game changer than many people realize. We have a scripture that tells us that The Lord does not excuse himself from what what he says and that whether by his mouth or the mouth of his servants it is the same. I don’t recall the exact reference, but it is towards the end of the D&C. Up until now the church has never actually disavowed the teachings of a prior prophet or said that he was wrong in what he taught. When we needed to distance ourselves from prior teachings (think of polygamy) we have done so by distancing ourselves from the practice saying things like oh it was just a temporary necessity, but never by saying it was flat out wrong. Not anymore. The next logical question is how to reconcile the fact that Brigham Young taught what really amounts to false doctrine with the fact that he was supposed to be a prophet of God. Since this is such a recent development formulating a response will take some time I imagine. At least until April’s general conference.

Third, this should tone down some talk about the great apostasy. How can we asset that early Christianity jumped the rails when we have now confirmed that false teaching has crept into our own church.

Finally, it seems there is a real opportunity for the Josephite branches if Mormonism to really re-assert themselves if they want to. Those are the branches of Mormonism that rejected Brigham Young as the successor to Joseph Smith and instead eventually coalesced around Joseph Smith III as the legitimate successor. I’ve always thought that the Josephites had a very strong argument to be the legitimate successors, much stronger than your typical LDS member seems to realize, and now that Brother Brigham’s own church has thrown him under the bus, it only seems to strengthen the case that he was not the true successor to Joseph Smith.

While condemning racism is a good thing, I’m still not sure what to make of this recent church statement.
 
I’m not your typical Mormon, but I’ll weigh in with some thoughts.

First, it’s no surprise that other posters have not come forward to defend either the priesthood ban or some of the things Brigham Young taught. I wouldn’t expect them to since it seems that the point of the recent statement relieves them of any obligation too. Nor will you find me defending the priesthood ban or previous church teachings. They were wrong. Racism is wrong. There is not much more to say than that.

Second, the statement is really much more of a game changer than many people realize. We have a scripture that tells us that The Lord does not excuse himself from what what he says and that whether by his mouth or the mouth of his servants it is the same. I don’t recall the exact reference, but it is towards the end of the D&C. Up until now the church has never actually disavowed the teachings of a prior prophet or said that he was wrong in what he taught. When we needed to distance ourselves from prior teachings (think of polygamy) we have done so by distancing ourselves from the practice saying things like oh it was just a temporary necessity, but never by saying it was flat out wrong. Not anymore. The next logical question is how to reconcile the fact that Brigham Young taught what really amounts to false doctrine with the fact that he was supposed to be a prophet of God. Since this is such a recent development formulating a response will take some time I imagine. At least until April’s general conference.

Third, this should tone down some talk about the great apostasy. How can we asset that early Christianity jumped the rails when we have now confirmed that false teaching has crept into our own church.

Finally, it seems there is a real opportunity for the Josephite branches if Mormonism to really re-assert themselves if they want to. Those are the branches of Mormonism that rejected Brigham Young as the successor to Joseph Smith and instead eventually coalesced around Joseph Smith III as the legitimate successor. I’ve always thought that the Josephites had a very strong argument to be the legitimate successors, much stronger than your typical LDS member seems to realize, and now that Brother Brigham’s own church has thrown him under the bus, it only seems to strengthen the case that he was not the true successor to Joseph Smith.

While condemning racism is a good thing, I’m still not sure what to make of this recent church statement.
Thanks for your thoughts.

It kind of reminds me what what Bruce McConkie had said after the 1978 revelation, IIRC. Something like, “forget everything I said before”. Perhaps that’s how some read this latest essay by the LDS Church. Forget everything the various prophets, apostles, and other leaders said about this, racism is wrong (even institutional racism?) and we condemn it.

Okay, just looked it up (too lazy to edit the above):

“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”***
speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

I do agree that condemning racism is always a good thing. But yes, this paper is odd in light of the LDS Church’s institutional racist practices and racist teachings (i.e. the inferiority of blacks, conduct of blacks in the pre-mortal existence, curses, etc) by prophets, apostles, etc. For me, it did further call into question the whole concept of living prophets and apostles, at least the LDS ones. And yes, a number of issues related to the LDS Church demonstrate that some of their arguments in favor of a total apostasy also apply to their own church (my other favorite is the so-called issue of changing the form of ordinances, such as baptism).
 
Up until now the church has never actually disavowed the teachings of a prior prophet or said that he was wrong in what he taught. When we needed to distance ourselves from prior teachings (think of polygamy) we have done so by distancing ourselves from the practice saying things like oh it was just a temporary necessity, but never by saying it was flat out wrong. Not anymore. The next logical question is how to reconcile the fact that Brigham Young taught what really amounts to false doctrine with the fact that he was supposed to be a prophet of God.
Kudos for stepping to the plate on this! However, SW Kimball and McConkie condemned Brigham Young’s adam-god theory as false doctrine:

[KIMBALL] “We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”

[MCCONCKIE] “Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel.

Ridiculous that McConkie claims that this was not true and uses “views” here because there is more than enough evidence to show that BY taught this as official doctrine - in the temple nonetheless. McConkie also said:

“I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but* I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church* and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality”
 
I’m not your typical Mormon, but I’ll weigh in with some thoughts.

First, it’s no surprise that other posters have not come forward to defend either the priesthood ban or some of the things Brigham Young taught. I wouldn’t expect them to since it seems that the point of the recent statement relieves them of any obligation too. Nor will you find me defending the priesthood ban or previous church teachings. They were wrong. Racism is wrong. There is not much more to say than that.

I disagree. IF they were prophets, then their teachings were from the lds God. I was taught when LDS that God never changes (other than that pesky human-to-god change). If true, that means the lds god is still every bit the horrible racist portrayed by lds prophets. No later statement spurred by financial reasons can change that. them mormons running from it says a lot about their church

Second, the statement is really much more of a game changer than many people realize. We have a scripture that tells us that The Lord does not excuse himself from what what he says and that whether by his mouth or the mouth of his servants it is the same. I don’t recall the exact reference, but it is towards the end of the D&C. Up until now the church has never actually disavowed the teachings of a prior prophet or said that he was wrong in what he taught. When we needed to distance ourselves from prior teachings (think of polygamy) we have done so by distancing ourselves from the practice saying things like oh it was just a temporary necessity, but never by saying it was flat out wrong. Not anymore. The next logical question is how to reconcile the fact that Brigham Young taught what really amounts to false doctrine with the fact that he was supposed to be a prophet of God. Since this is such a recent development formulating a response will take some time I imagine. At least until April’s general conference.

exactly. Same with polygamy, adam/god, blacks turning white, etc

Third, this should tone down some talk about the great apostasy. How can we asset that early Christianity jumped the rails when we have now confirmed that false teaching has crept into our own church.

Bingo
 
Ridiculous that McConkie claims that this was not true and uses “views” here because there is more than enough evidence to show that BY taught this as official doctrine - in the temple nonetheless. McConkie also said:

“I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but* I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church* and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality”
Thanks for bringing up Adam-God doctrine (or theory) that Brigham Young taught as true doctrine. We can throw in blood atonement for good measure.

Based on McConkie, how is anyone in the LDS church supposed to know what is false doctrine or true doctrine? (Burning in the bosom, I suppose). Does that mean that current doctrines on homosexual marriage and women not being ordained to the priesthood are true doctrines? How do we know they are not false doctrines? If false doctrine is permitted to be taught in God’s one true, restored church, why was there even a need for a restoration? Couldn’t we just say that God allows false doctrine to be taught in the Catholic Church and such teaching is simply part of the sifting process of mortality and forget the whole mess of doing a restoration?

McConkie’s statement is evidence that LDS prophets and apostles are making it up as they go along and they can change the doctrine of the church as they see fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top