Blacks and the LDS/Mormon Priesthood

[zaffiroborant]

 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.

Could you please proved references showing that this was universally accepted by most Christians prior to 1900.

 

[taylorf]

This was only actually a change in policy.

Geez…stop reading fairLDS.

1947 the First Presidency of the Church issued an Official Statement:
“From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.” (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement:
“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.” (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:
"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes…

“Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain’s transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.”

 

[TexanKnight]

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.

I do not buy that for a minute…and neither should you. If it was not a doctrine, there would have been no need to rescind. There are threads with the incredibly racist language of LDS prophets. If I knew about it as a Mormon, how did McKay not know?

 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.

That is simply not true. And he knew it. This just shows he was lying.

 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.

No, the difficulty was that there was a doctrine. There was also prophesies that blacks would become white if they became LDS.

      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.

Most Christians did not claim to have a prophet who spoke to God. Stop kidding yourself.

 The LDS God did not say racist things.

Sure he did…the lds prophets claim they are the mouthpieces of God. You truly should do more study before posting.

What the LDS God said on the matter was already written down in the LDS scriptures.

Yes…that blacks would become white. How did that work out?

 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.

Which BY did. Again, you should study before claiming things that are not true

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.

ah…yet another failed effort. I always find it extremely funny when people try to compare Biblical prophets with LDS prophets. To compare people from thousands of years BC in a different country, different culture and different mindset who spoke in a different language with lds prophets in this country in the 1800s speaking English is ludicrous. But Mormons try it all the time.

 No one comes to the table with clean hands in relation to the past treatment of persons of African descent, Catholics included.

No one but Mormons claim to speak to God and speak FOR God…you lose that point again

 

[kimg901]

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.

 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.

LOL. You need to learn your history before coming here with your words.

 

[Karalosi]

zaffiroborant , regarding the source you requested: Lester E. Bush Jr.’s article “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview” which was originally published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought on page 8 of 70 or the page numbered 232 as it was taken from Dialogue. Refer to foot note 22 for non-Mormon sources that he used. I believe this article was published in 1974. I found it on the internet for free, just Google it.

 By the way it’s interesting to read what Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, the two LDS scholars/historians who have researched this issue more than anyone else, have written more than 30 years later in subsequent articles.

Good information is also available at [blacksinthescriptures.com/blacks-in-the-bible/](http://blacksinthescriptures.com/blacks-in-the-bible/)

 You can read about President McKay not knowing about the black ban on the priesthood until he was an Apostle in his biography written by his son. 

 "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.  Let us have this matter clear....  You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible not the Church, for what he writes.  If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something that is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member is duty bound to reject it.  If he writes what is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation 3:203-4).  
 I have about ten other quotes that say same the same thing from other LDS Presidents who were not specifically talking about blacks and the priesthood, but LDS doctrine in general.

 Taylorf, the next statement in your series of quotes would be the December 15, 1969 statement from the LDS First Presidency and 12 Apostles in which the restriction was no longer called a “doctrine” and instead was referred to as a “teaching”.  

 “From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.”

 By the way, this reference to Joseph Smith as the source was wrong.  Historical documents clearly show the source was Brigham Young as is referenced on the new church website at the start of this thread. 

 Interestingly, this 1969 statement was NOT signed by President McKay who was too sick at the time.  He would not have approved it. 

In the next year, 1970, McKay is quoted (from 1957 – multiple sources) in the Salt Lake Tribune article by Roger Porter “Educator Cites No Negro Bias in LDS Tenets”

as saying that there is no such doctrine and there is only a policy.

The point is that Taylorf quotes things that have been disavowed by the LDS Church since at least 1978.  Yes, the members were told this was doctrine at the time.  This was also wrong. The members were also told to ignore anything that didn’t correlate with the LDS scriptures unless there was a revelation from the Prophet on the issue.   

 Yes it was a mess that needed to be cleaned up.  That’s what the 1978 revelation did in the minds of the LDS members.  

 LDS Apostle Bruce McConcie from 1978, “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.  We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

 TexanKight refers to some prophecy about blacks becoming white.  The only thing he could possibly be referring to is a quote from the Book of Mormon in which the Laminates (darker skinned American Indians) would become “white and delightsome”.  2Nephi 30:6.  The “white” having been replaced with “pure”.  As a youth I do remember that this thought was common and I think there is even something that Pres. Kimball said about this.         
 It’s clear now that the reference to white in the scripture did not mean that the peoples’ skins would actually become white, but instead was a metaphor for becoming pure through repentance.  

 It is still a common LDS misconception that the Nephites in the BofM were white like Western Europeans were white.  The origin of the peoples in the BofM was Jews from Jerusalem who had mixed with the Canannites.  

  The doctrine from the BofM regarding black and white is “all are alike unto God” which is also quoted on the new LDS website.

 

[Karalosi]

Does it not bother Catholics that in 1879 Pope Pius IX was praying that God remove the curse of Ham from the Ethiopians? A curse that did not exist in that sense?
How is this different from what past LDS leaders said? …because you don’t like the LDS? Personally, I see a lot of hypocrisy coming from posters on this thread.

 

[TexanKnight]

zaffiroborant , regarding the source you requested: Lester E. Bush Jr.’s article “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview” which was originally published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought on page 8 of 70 or the page numbered 232 as it was taken from Dialogue. Refer to foot note 22 for non-Mormon sources that he used. I believe this article was published in 1974. I found it on the internet for free, just Google it.

 By the way it’s interesting to read what Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, the two LDS scholars/historians who have researched this issue more than anyone else, have written more than 30 years later in subsequent articles.

Good information is also available at [blacksinthescriptures.com/blacks-in-the-bible/](http://blacksinthescriptures.com/blacks-in-the-bible/)

lol…yes…we can learn from LDS folks who will follow the ever-changing doctrine of the LDS Church…wrong!

 You can read about President McKay not knowing about the black ban on the priesthood until he was an Apostle in his biography written by his son.

And you can read about the black ban from everyone else, including BY and spencer kimball…so?

    Taylorf, the next statement in your series of quotes would be the December 15, 1969 statement from the LDS First Presidency and 12 Apostles in which the restriction was no longer called a “doctrine” and instead was referred to as a “teaching”.

Which is what Mormons always do when they want to go against earlier prophets. Suddenly, things change from “doctrine” to “teaching”. Which begs the question, why does the LDS god confuse his members by letting prophets teach things that are not true?

      Interestingly, this 1969 statement was NOT signed by President McKay who was too sick at the time.  He would not have approved it.

You sure? That sounds like an lds coup, then…

In the next year, 1970, McKay is quoted (from 1957 – multiple sources) in the Salt Lake Tribune article by Roger Porter “Educator Cites No Negro Bias in LDS Tenets”

as saying that there is no such doctrine and there is only a policy.

Then he lied. Thank you for showing that

       LDS Apostle Bruce McConcie from 1978, “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.  We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Yes…the lds god constantly bows to pressure and changes his mind. Shall I post the horrible racist quotes again?

 TexanKight refers to some prophecy about blacks becoming white.  The only thing he could possibly be referring to is a quote from the Book of Mormon in which the Laminates (darker skinned American Indians) would become “white and delightsome”.  2Nephi 30:6.  The “white” having been replaced with “pure”.  As a youth I do remember that this thought was common and I think there is even something that Pres. Kimball said about this.         
 It’s clear now that the reference to white in the scripture did not mean that the peoples’ skins would actually become white, but instead was a metaphor for becoming pure through repentance.

Wrong. It meant exactly that. I referenced it because you claimed there was nothing in lds scriptures. The book of mormon was supposed to be the most perfect book. So why was a change needed? It was needed because it was clear people were not changing colors.

 It is still a common LDS misconception that the Nephites in the BofM were white like Western Europeans were white.  The origin of the peoples in the BofM was Jews from Jerusalem who had mixed with the Canannites.

If only that were true. Sadly, there is no such thing as Book of Mormon jews. Now, you can change my mind if you can show me some archaeological proof…

 

[TexanKnight]

Does it not bother Catholics that in 1879 Pope Pius IX was praying that God remove the curse of Ham from the Ethiopians? A curse that did not exist in that sense?
How is this different from what past LDS leaders said? …because you don’t like the LDS? Personally, I see a lot of hypocrisy coming from posters on this thread.

Nope…does not bother me at all. Catholic Popes have never claimed to receive direct revelation from God. They have never claimed to speak face to face with God.

LDS prophets DO make that claim. You cannot compare the two, unless you want to admit that lds prophets do not really receive revelation.

Is that what you agree since you say they are equal?

hmmmm?

 

[Karalosi]

Regarding David O McKay not knowing about the ban previously:

From Mormon Times / Desert News - Much has changed for LDS blacks since '78
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret News
Sunday, Jun. 08, 2008
In 1957 he recalled:
“I first met this problem in Hawaii in 1921. A worthy (black) man had married a Polynesian woman. She was faithful in the church. They had a large family everyone (sic) of whom were active and worthy. My sympathies were so aroused that I wrote home to President Grant asking if he would please make and exception so that we could ordain that man to the Priesthood. He wrote back saying “David I am as sympathetic as you are, but until the Lord gives us a revelation regarding that matter, we shall have to maintain the policy of the church.” David O McKay and the Rise of Moden Mormonism, p. 74

If the Catholic church does not assert that the Pope receives revelation from God, how is one supposed to believe that he is leading the church in the way that God wants it lead? Are you saying that the Pope just relies on his own best instincts when there are questions about unknown subjects? What does the catholic canon say about this?

 

[taylorf]

If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something that is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member is duty bound to reject it.

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78)

Looks like it’s not really a duty.

Taylorf, the next statement in your series of quotes would be the December 15, 1969 statement from the LDS First Presidency and 12 Apostles in which the restriction was no longer called a “doctrine” and instead was referred to as a “teaching”.

Please show me where in that statement that the the 1947/1949 statement was no longer valid and that it is now “teaching.” I read it twice and couldn’t find it.

Interestingly, this 1969 statement was NOT signed by President McKay who was too sick at the time. He would not have approved it.

Please cite a reference for this.

In the next year, 1970, McKay is quoted (from 1957 – multiple sources) in the Salt Lake Tribune article by Roger Porter “Educator Cites No Negro Bias in LDS Tenets”
as saying that there is no such doctrine and there is only a policy.

Then he flat out LIED considering the statements of 47/49. Maybe he didn’t get the memo that a prior first presidency had released those. Or maybe he was in Arizona at the time

I think an official statement trumps a SL Tribune article about second-hand quotes from a private conversation.

The point is that Taylorf quotes things that have been disavowed by the LDS Church since at least 1978. Yes, the members were told this was doctrine at the time. This was also wrong. The members were also told to ignore anything that didn’t correlate with the LDS scriptures unless there was a revelation from the Prophet on the issue.

 Yes it was a mess that needed to be cleaned up.  That’s what the 1978 revelation did in the minds of the LDS members.

LDS church history is more than a mess…it’s a raging dumpster fire. False teachings and doctrines from LDS prophets and apostles make Jesus look completely incompetent as the head of the church.

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past…We spoke with a limited understanding…”

True words of wisdom.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Does it not bother Catholics that in 1879 Pope Pius IX was praying that God remove the curse of Ham from the Ethiopians? A curse that did not exist in that sense?
How is this different from what past LDS leaders said? …because you don’t like the LDS? Personally, I see a lot of hypocrisy coming from posters on this thread.

Perhaps you’re not actually understanding the arguments advanced. No one denies that some leaders in other churches may have expressed racist views, especially when one considers the time periods involved (noting that your reference to Pope Pius IX is from 1879). Interestingly, the two churches that perhaps more readily come to mind when one considers racist attitudes towards blacks are the LDS Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention.

The actual issue is the institutional racism, which had an institutional and individual effect on a group of people, not allowing them to participate in ordinances believed to be required for eternal life. Your posts in this thread have caused the issue to be more muddled, and doesn’t vindicate the prophets of the LDS Church pre-1978. Indeed, your post causes one to doubt even more the claims of the LDS Church to have “living oracles”, “living prophets”, etc. It seems to function no differently than other churches that don’t claim to be led by prophets, seers, and revelators (let alone 15 of them). Further, the implication of your posts is that you have more insight into the LDS scriptures than the LDS prophets and apostles themselves. They said that it came from a direct command from the Lord, you say it wasn’t possible. Thank you for instilling a lack of confidence in the prophets in recognizing what is and isn’t a direct command from the Lord.

You claimed that it was a change in "policy’, yet we have official declarations and letters from the First Presidency that state that it was not a matter of policy, but one of doctrine, a “direct command from the Lord”. So who is correct? How do you know what is personal opinion and what is doctrine, especially when the prophets themselves said that it was “doctrine”? Should we believe you, or the ones with the claimed authority? Further, as I already mentioned earlier, the LDS Church does not claim that it is only limited to the standard works.

I do hope you can see the clear and obvious difference between the LDS Church’s institutional racist history, and obscure statements in the Catholic Church. At least, the distinction is obvious to me.

 

[taylorf]

Does it not bother Catholics that in 1879 Pope Pius IX was praying that God remove the curse of Ham from the Ethiopians? A curse that did not exist in that sense?
How is this different from what past LDS leaders said? …because you don’t like the LDS? Personally, I see a lot of hypocrisy coming from posters on this thread.

I’m not Catholic…yet, but this doesn’t bother me. How can you compare a simple prayer to 100+ years of institutional racist policies/doctrines/perspectives? Nice try.

BTW, the first black Catholic Bishop was ordained two years later.

 

[twopekinguys]

We also have the first black pope.

Pope Victor I (died 199) was bishop of Rome or pope; the dates of his tenure are uncertain, but one source states he became pope in 189 and gives the year of his death as 199.[1] He was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa—probably in Leptis Magna (or Tripolitania). He was later canonized. His feast day is celebrated on 28 July as “St Victor I, Pope and Martyr”.

From Wiki, or google “the first black pope”

 

[iepuras]

We also have the first black pope.

Pope Victor I (died 199) was bishop of Rome or pope; the dates of his tenure are uncertain, but one source states he became pope in 189 and gives the year of his death as 199.[1] He was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa—probably in Leptis Magna (or Tripolitania). He was later canonized. His feast day is celebrated on 28 July as “St Victor I, Pope and Martyr”.

From Wiki, or google “the first black pope”

Very interesting!

Karalosi, I also struggle to see the obvious hypocrisy when I consider ALL the apostolic churches rather than just looking at the Roman Catholic Church. So where were the Ethiopian Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) getting their bishops and priests? Were they sent by Rome because of the “curse of Ham” or were they Ethiopian? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I would assume that the bishops and priests of the Ethiopian Apostolic Churches were and are African. If you look at basic historical demographics, it is not obviously racist or hypocritical that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t have a whole lot of black priests and bishops until the last 100-150 years or so. Just like I wouldn’t expect the Ethiopian Apostolic Churches (whether or not in communion with Rome) to have had very many white priests or bishops. In the west, it is very easy to focus on the Roman Catholic Church and forget about our Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brethren, but they are an extraordinarily important part of Christianity.

The LDS church denied Africans the priesthood and saving temple ordinances simply because of the color of their skin. For all the faults of Apostolic Christian Churches, they have not denied holy orders or the sacraments based on skin color or nationality since Peter baptized Cornelius and his family.

 

[zaffiroborant]

zaffiroborant , regarding the source you requested: Lester E. Bush Jr.’s article “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview” which was originally published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought on page 8 of 70 or the page numbered 232 as it was taken from Dialogue. Refer to foot note 22 for non-Mormon sources that he used. I believe this article was published in 1974. I found it on the internet for free, just Google it.

 By the way it’s interesting to read what Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, the two LDS scholars/historians who have researched this issue more than anyone else, have written more than 30 years later in subsequent articles.

Well the foot note simply lists a lot of books it gives nothing specific to support the claim. I’d also note it comes no where near supporting the assertion you made here:

 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.

.

Every work mentioned, only mentioned I might add not actually cited, is only a reference to African American treatment in the US, there is nothing there indicating acceptance universally in place and time. Why does he not us actual citations, he mentions Jerome and Augustine but only in light of what other authors have used, and he doesn’t even bother to quote them. I just don’t see how you have supported a universal acceptance, what I see in your “go google” is an LDS sociologist and another LDS guy (scholar of what I can’t find) making vague assertions to other works. It’s obvious that what is published in Dialogue is minimal research dressed as scholarship with the sole purpose to reassure the faithful and not a paper meant for review by competent historians. It leaves out the many different beliefs about the descendants of Ham over the centuries, for example it doesn’t even mention the medieval beliefs that serfs were the descendants of Ham.

A cursory try at googling Jerome/Augustine descendants of Ham isn’t giving me anything.

 

[Karalosi]

The quote from Pius the IX was meant to address a prior poster’s question about prior acceptance of the curse of Cain or Ham belief. If the Pope was saying this in 1879 how wide spread do you think the belief about this was? I had better quotes about this and I’ll try and find them. It’s a known historical fact.

The other points are the Pope was wrong about blacks or Ethiopians being cursed and calling them cursed was racist unless we are using a standard that past racism doesn’t count. I see a double standard in which past LDS statements don’t get the same treatment. Also the Pope used the words “wretched Ethiopians in Central Africa”. Sounds like racism to me.

Lester Bush only started his article from the point at which it would matter to an LDS reader, hence the reason he did not discuss the belief about Cain, Ham, and/or Canaan at prior points in history. Someone that read the whole 80 pages would easy see how much research was needed to write it and would not make assumptions that it was unscholarly.

The poster that stated that when one thinks about racist churches one thinks about Baptists and Mormons. Yes that is what is out there, but somewhat unfairly so. Almost all churches in the US were segregated up until 1968 or 1969 at which point most protestant churches started accepting a few token blacks as members. At the worst you could say that the LDS were 10 years late coming to the table compared to everyone else. However, at the same time the church has always had black members that worshiped together with its white members and did not have to change to let them become members.

Institutional racism was the norm for American society at the time and not just for Baptists and Mormons. It was not just “some leaders in some churches”.

Worse things could be said about protestant churches than about LDS if you were doing an overall comparison which is why most religious groups that disagree with LDS that go back that far leave this subject alone and prefer to use other reasons to disagree with the church. I.e. Klu Klux Klan involvement, etc.

From the LDS website referenced on the first post of this thread:
“Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

 

[TexanKnight]

The quote from Pius the IX was meant to address a prior poster’s question about prior acceptance of the curse of Cain or Ham belief. If the Pope was saying this in 1879 how wide spread do you think the belief about this was? I had better quotes about this and I’ll try and find them. It’s a known historical fact.

thank you for admitting js was not a prophet and that there has been no lds prophets. To compare a “prophet” who allegedly speaks to God with men who make no such claim to make a point is to admit that they truly do not speak to God.

The poster that stated that when one thinks about racist churches one thinks about Baptists and Mormons. Yes that is what is out there, but somewhat unfairly so. Almost all churches in the US were segregated up until 1968 or 1969 at which point most protestant churches started accepting a few token blacks as members. At the worst you could say that the LDS were 10 years late coming to the table compared to everyone else. However, at the same time the church has always had black members that worshiped together with its white members and did not have to change to let them become members.

Again, you fail. You compare the decisions made by church leaders as if they were all equal when, according to Mormons, only the LDS “church” had their leaders speaking directly to God. If that were true, wouldn’t you expect the lds “church” to have purer and more correct teachings?

Institutional racism was the norm for American society at the time and not just for Baptists and Mormons. It was not just “some leaders in some churches”.

But, if the lds "Church was getting their teachings directly from God, as they claim, then it appears that so were ALL the churches, since, as you admit, they all taught the same. According to you, one cannot expect churches to have different teachings even though one church claims to have direct revelation.

From the LDS website referenced on the first post of this thread:
“Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.”

As you admit, the lds god keeps changing his mind…

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

So then, BY was not a prophet? Your other leaders who claimed reveltion from god did not really do so?

“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. Can 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, page 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, Volume 2, page 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, Volume 10, page 110.)

Jan 23,1852 - Brigham Young instructs Utah Legislature to legalize slavery because “we must believe in slavery.”

Feb 5,1852 - Brigham Young announces policy of denying priesthood to all those black African ancestry, even “if there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before” because “negroes are the children of old Cain…any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the priesthood.” Contrary to Joseph Smith’s example in authorizing the ordination of Elijah Abel, this is LDS policy for the next 126 years.

March 30,1955 - Quorum of Twelve recommends establishment of separate unit or branch for African-American members in Salt Lake City.

Now, do LDS apsotles and prophets receive direct revelation from God or not? If so, should the lds church be held to a higher standard or not?

 

[zaffiroborant]

The quote from Pius the IX was meant to address a prior poster’s question about prior acceptance of the curse of Cain or Ham belief. If the Pope was saying this in 1879 how wide spread do you think the belief about this was? I had better quotes about this and I’ll try and find them. It’s a known historical fact.

Lester Bush only started his article from the point at which it would matter to an LDS reader, hence the reason he did not discuss the belief about Cain, Ham, and/or Canaan at prior points in history. Someone that read the whole 80 pages would easy see how much research was needed to write it and would not make assumptions that it was unscholarly.

As I said nothing you referred to in the article supports the universal claim, it is about the US at that time. The throw away comments saying it was universal (: done or experienced by everyone : existing or available for everyone: existing or true at all times or in all places)
are simply there to assuage the discomfort LDS members have over this issue. And no, I am not impressed by vague assertions with no support, which is what you have in the articles claim of universal.

 

[Wandile]

We also have the first black pope.

Pope Victor I (died 199) was bishop of Rome or pope; the dates of his tenure are uncertain, but one source states he became pope in 189 and gives the year of his death as 199.[1] He was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa—probably in Leptis Magna (or Tripolitania). He was later canonized. His feast day is celebrated on 28 July as “St Victor I, Pope and Martyr”.

From Wiki, or google “the first black pope”

Just a correction, Pope Victor was not black but Berber (Native north African). The indigenous people of North Africa were never black bar the Egyptians (who were a black population before the Greeks and Arabs came and mixed) and Sudanese.

St. Augustine of Hippo was a Berber too. However Pope Victor was the first African Pope

 

[twopekinguys]

Just a correction, Pope Victor was not black but Berber (Native north African). The indigenous people of North Africa were never black bar the Egyptians (who were a black population before the Greeks and Arabs came and mixed) and Sudanese.

St. Augustine of Hippo was a Berber too. However Pope Victor was the first African Pope

Here’s a correction for your correction.

The Berber identity is usually wider than language and ethnicity,[clarification needed] and encompasses the entire history and geography of North Africa. Berbers are not a homogeneous ethnic group and they encompass a range of phenotypes, cultures and ancestries

From Wiki (bolding mine)

http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/594337_berber5_jpgc159e40fe33851a00eba1aff8e55042c