T
TexanKnight
Guest
some really good points made…
kinda proves the lds church does not really have true prophets.
- Status
kinda proves the lds church does not really have true prophets.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I see threads like and imagine mormons sitting there…hoping that if they do not respond, the thread will die and prospective mormons will never see it.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
T
TexanKnight
Guest
From Joseph Fielding Smith:
Joseph Fielding Smith: “That negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born.” (The Way to Perfection, p. 43).
“Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam’s posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been ‘despised among all people.’ This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith … we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood.” (The Way to Perfection, p. 110-111).
Joseph Fielding Smith: “That negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born.” (The Way to Perfection, p. 43).
“Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam’s posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been ‘despised among all people.’ This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith … we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood.” (The Way to Perfection, p. 110-111).
T
TexanKnight
Guest
From John Taylor:
after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God… " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 22, p. 304).
after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God… " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 22, p. 304).
I
iepuras
Guest
Yes, they have been unsurprisingly silent on the polygamy thread as well.
K
kimg901
Guest
A side note. Some of the Mormons where I work don’t even know about all this stuff. They are really unaware of such teachings.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
The whole Swedish incident happened because an area authority in Sweden was trying to prove wrong what people told him. He has been a Mormon all his life and didn’t even know about Joseph Smith’s polygamy.
Some Mormons Search the Web and Find Doubt
In the small but cohesive Mormon community where he grew up, Hans Mattsson was a solid believer and a pillar of the church. He followed his father and grandfather into church leadership and finally became an “area authority” overseeing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout Europe.
When fellow believers in Sweden first began coming to him with information from the Internet that contradicted the church’s history and teachings, he dismissed it as “anti-Mormon propaganda,” the whisperings of Lucifer. He asked his superiors for help in responding to the members’ doubts, and when they seemed to only sidestep the questions, Mr. Mattsson began his own investigation.
But when he discovered credible evidence that the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist and that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were rife with historical anomalies, Mr. Mattsson said he felt that the foundation on which he had built his life began to crumble.
Around the world and in the United States, where the faith was founded, the Mormon Church is grappling with a wave of doubt and disillusionment among members who encountered information on the Internet that sabotaged what they were taught about their faith, according to interviews with dozens of Mormons and those who study the church.
“I felt like I had an earthquake under my feet,” said Mr. Mattsson, now an emeritus area authority. “Everything I’d been taught, everything I’d been proud to preach about and witness about just crumbled under my feet. It was such a terrible psychological and nearly physical disturbance.”
Mr. Mattsson’s decision to go public with his disaffection, in a church whose top leaders commonly deliberate in private, is a sign that the church faces serious challenges not just from outside but also from skeptics inside.
nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us/some-mormons-search-the-web-and-find-doubt.html?pagewanted%3Dall&_r=0
Fascinating article. Read it all.
T
taylorf
Guest
Because Mormons are taught that such topics are not faith promoting and researching them can expose them to the influences of Satan.
K
kimg901
Guest
Too true.
K
kimg901
Guest
Ah yes. I read this article before.
K
Karalosi
Guest
Its true to say that most LDS don’t really understand the Black issue. The new website referenced on this thread actually does a lot to give answers to the LDS and others.
Quoting past statements from some LDS leaders which have been disavowed as current LDS doctrine isn’t fair. There are many past statements that certainly are ugly and racist, but were made during times when slavery, racism, segregation, and discrimination were accepted norms of American society and are fairly thought of in that context.
The ultimate source of doctrine for LDS are their scriptures unless a revelation is received by the Church President. The LDS ban on blacks receiving the priesthood and temples ordinances was clearly in conflict with their canon. These wasn’t so clear before the changes in 1978 for reasons that take a long time to explain.
LDS President Hinckley apologized to Rev. Cecil Murray, retired pastor the First AME Church of Los Angeles for the church’s past actions regarding racism and slavery. I believe that its fair to say that this apology applies to anyone else who was offended.
Quoting past statements from some LDS leaders which have been disavowed as current LDS doctrine isn’t fair. There are many past statements that certainly are ugly and racist, but were made during times when slavery, racism, segregation, and discrimination were accepted norms of American society and are fairly thought of in that context.
The ultimate source of doctrine for LDS are their scriptures unless a revelation is received by the Church President. The LDS ban on blacks receiving the priesthood and temples ordinances was clearly in conflict with their canon. These wasn’t so clear before the changes in 1978 for reasons that take a long time to explain.
LDS President Hinckley apologized to Rev. Cecil Murray, retired pastor the First AME Church of Los Angeles for the church’s past actions regarding racism and slavery. I believe that its fair to say that this apology applies to anyone else who was offended.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
If the ultimate source of doctrine for LDS is the scriptures, then what is the point in having “living prophets and apostles”? I think that’s the actual issue of this thread. Are the living prophets and apostles unnecessary, and not giving us anything that is doctrinal unless a revelation is received by the Church President?
As we read in Chapter 10-Scriptures of the Gospel Principles manual:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture.”
Where can we find these inspired words of living prophets that are also accepted as scripture? The manual actually answers this:
“In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instruction to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9)”.
Many of the quotes in this thread are from “living prophets” (at least at the time they were said), in some official capacity. We even have an official letter from the First Presidency claiming that the priesthood restriction is from direct command from the Lord. Now, the LDS Church claims “we don’t know”. That is the issue that is problematic for many (we are well aware of the time period that they were living in and that they were influenced by it. that actually adds more to the issue of an official, institutional racism claimed to be from God by the Lord’s prophets). The Church seemed to know very well where the ban came from, who issued it, and why. The prophets and apostles taught it. Now, the Church must apologize for the prior teachings of the living oracles.
As I’ve said before, I really don’t see any benefit from having the LDS living prophets, since they don’t really seem to function any differently than the leaders of various other churches that don’t claim to have prophetic leadership.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I don’t believe there was any conflict with LDS scriptures concerning the ban. If there is is as you claim it makes the prophets even worse than useless, it leaves them teaching and acting contrary to God’s word, for years they led members astray.
I’m curious as to how you know why these conflicts were impossible for your prophets to discern for years and am anticipating your putting these reasons forward.
Not all that impressed by an arcane apology offered to one man in private, in front of a small specially invited group, is still only a private apology. LDS leaders lack what ever is needed to man up and admit they were wrong and apologize.
Z
zippity
Guest
God does not lie and neither would a true prophet lie. I believe in the OT if a prophet lied, he was stoned. Pretty strict. I left LDA because by their own prophet and the BoM God lies.Happy New Year to all!
L
Lochias
Guest
Several of the ex-LDS folks I know left precisely because of what the Mormon church started to teach them, past a certain point in their membership; the “meat” beyond the “milk”, as they put it.
These ex-LDS found that “meat” to be very foul-tasting, indeed. I have a difficult time believing that experienced LDS members don’t know exactly what their church taught in the past, and still teaches to this day. (Black people are accepted by the LDS church by necessity of the modern age, not by choice.)
These ex-LDS found that “meat” to be very foul-tasting, indeed. I have a difficult time believing that experienced LDS members don’t know exactly what their church taught in the past, and still teaches to this day. (Black people are accepted by the LDS church by necessity of the modern age, not by choice.)
P
Phntm
Guest
I can sympathize with your sentiments. However, as one who was “born under the covenant”, it was all too easy in Mormon society to ignore the dirty bits. So, we might know about the dirty bits but put no effort into understanding them, kind of like grade school rumors - don’t put as much emphasis on finding out the whole truth. Also, as noted before elsewhere, there is not a strong emphasis on scholarship (what-have-you), so it’s easy/expected to float along blissfully accepting.
I would expect converts to be more aware and interested in learning it all, but lifers, not so much.
L
Lochias
Guest
Interesting perspective, thank you.
K
Karalosi
Guest
As far as LDS church members knowing about the teaching on blacks in the past, LDS Pres. David McKay did not even know that there was any “doctrine” prohibiting blacks from having the priesthood until after he was called to be an apostle. He grew up in Arizona. This was generally not an issue for LDS until the time of WW2 when 20% of the US population moved to deal with the war. This brought blacks to Utah that had never been there before, for the most part.
Code:
Pres. McKay was the one that declared a few years before his death that there is no such doctrine prohibiting blacks from having the priesthood. He said this privately before this in the 1950's, though. It did not make since to make a big deal about the matter unless the prohibition was going to be changed. And given the racism of the times he did not feel that he could make the change at the time. Most LDS don't know this and still think the change in doctrine came in 1978 from Pres. Kimball. This was only actually a change in policy.
The difficulty in making the change came from: 1) Brigham Young's statements at the time made it sound as if a revelation had been received, 2) the incorrect interpretation of the Book of Abraham by most members, and 3) the overall status of race relations in the country.
Regarding the conflict with the LDS Canon, Judah of the twelve tribes married a Canaanite and also had two sons through trickery with his daughter-in-law who was also a Canaanite. As such, Christ and the twelve apostles at the time of Christ all were descended from Canaanites that would have been banned from the priesthood. The LDS claim their priesthood was restored from these Apostles. I.e. the ban would not have been possible. In LDS scriptures Joseph Smith is stated to be a descendent of Ephraim the son of Joseph who was sold into slavery in Egypt. Joseph married an Egyptian. I.e. Joseph Smith would ultimately be descended from a black person. I.e. God would not have given him the priesthood if he was banned from having it.
The idea that persons of black skin were cursed to a life of servitude came from the Babylonian Talmud and was nearly universally accepted as biblical fact by most Christians before about 1900.
The LDS God did not say racist things. What the LDS God said on the matter was already written down in the LDS scriptures. LDS leaders express their own personal opinions at times which are mistaken for doctrine. However, in this case LDS leaders were saying that there was a doctrine on this matter when there was no such doctrine relying on BY's statements.
As far as Prophets or Apostles being racist or making mistakes. The LDS church makes no claim of infallibility of it's leaders, unless a revelation from their prophet is claimed on the matter. In fact, how does one read the bible and come away with such an idea that prophets never make mistakes? Jonah, the prophet had to be forced to go and preach at Niniva and was mad when the people repented and God did not destroy them (racism). Moses struck the rock instead of using his voice as he was commanded. Nathan or Samuel (I forget) had to go back and tell King David that he would not be allowed to build the temple in Jerusalem contrary to what he said the day before. The prophet Samuel did nothing when his sons ruled with corruption. Peter denied Christ three times. Etc.... We need to be careful in applying our own standard to prophets that do not correlate with biblical standards.
No one comes to the table with clean hands in relation to the past treatment of persons of African descent, Catholics included.- Status