Blacks and the LDS/Mormon Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh I see so only black people in Africa are allowed any say on this, American blacks have no standing on the issue, got it.
Pretty much your best bet is with an African as their racial classification has not been so distorted that people barely look black are being called black. This is just the honest truth. It would only make sense that the place where black come from is the best place to get your information on who or what a Bantu person is
 
Pretty much your best bet is with an African as their racial classification has not been so distorted that people barely look black are being called black. This is just the honest truth. It would only make sense that the place where black come from is the best place to get your information on who or what a Bantu person is
Yes I get it American blacks don’t know anything about being black, so they should just be quiet.
 
Comparing Hispanics to Berber is like comparing apples with water. Not the same thing at all. Berber is not just a culture but a people of north Africa. They were not black. Any scholar will tell you this. In fact no credible historian has ever said there has been a black pope. The African popes were not black…

That’s fine If them being African is good for you. I don’t understand why you mention this though.
Not exactly my friend. I live in the Dominican Republic and anyone of the girls in the picture could pass for Dominicans. And why not, they have the same genes, SSA and Southern European.
 
Responding to an earlier post about where does it say that Pres McKay would not have approved the 1969 LDS statement:

Leonard Arrington (LDS church historian) reported that in about 1954 President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that “concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal.”
Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1998), 183.
 
Okay this is going to be my last post on this subject since I think the issue has been adequately discussed.

Regarding the LDS black situation not leading to faith in its leaders, this is a valid and fair criticism. The corollary argument also applies. It does not lead one to have faith that Christ is guiding the Catholic Church through Popes when there have been things such as the inquisition and crusades done in the name of God.

Normally I just walk away from such discussions on this site since there appears to me to be trolls looking for a fight. I appreciate those of you that have responded civilly and apologize if my tone may have been harsh.

The blacks and priesthood issue for LDS is probably the most difficult for LDS members to address since they are generally not taught about it except maybe briefly once every 4 years when Official Declaration # 2 is discussed in Sunday School. I.e. most do not know what to say about it and when they do talk about it they get it wrong most of the time. This is very annoying to me personally. This has started to change for the better in recent years though.

The issue is more of an issue with critics of the LDS church then it is with church members.

Blacks who investigate the LDS church have the same issues as everyone else.

Blacks who have an issue with past racism of any church stay in the 7 or 8 mostly all black churches which account for 80% of black Christians in the US. Which is to say that this is not just a Mormon issue.
 
Normally I just walk away from such discussions on this site since there appears to me to be trolls looking for a fight. I appreciate those of you that have responded civilly and apologize if my tone may have been harsh.
Just because someone disputes your claims doesn’t mean they are trolling, and quite frankly is an unfair statement. Especially when you consider that several of those people are former mormons.
 
No doubt this thread has jumped the shark.Only question was it a white shark or a black shark?
 
Responding to an earlier post about where does it say that Pres McKay would not have approved the 1969 LDS statement:

Leonard Arrington (LDS church historian) reported that in about 1954 President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that “concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal.”
Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1998), 183.
LOL, you know how he would have decided based on a “quote” that happened to occur 15 years prior? A lot can change within 15 years. It took less time for Joseph to change his mind at least 9 different times about hist first vision.

I’ll still take an OFFICIAL statement of the first presidency over second hand quotes.
 
**Normally I just walk away from such discussions on this site since **there appears to me to be trolls looking for a fight. I appreciate those of you that have responded civilly and apologize if my tone may have been harsh.
After 10 posts you have a usual MO for certain discussions on this site. Have you perhaps visited us under another name since you are so familiar with how things work on this site.
 
Responding to an earlier post about where does it say that Pres McKay would not have approved the 1969 LDS statement:

Leonard Arrington (LDS church historian) reported that in about 1954 President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that “concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal.”
Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1998), 183.
Would that be David O McKay who signed a letter 1947, along with George Albert Smith and J. Reuben Clark Jr. that among other things said:
Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born have a relationship in the life heretofore.
From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.
 
Okay this is going to be my last post on this subject since I think the issue has been adequately discussed.

Honestly, this is unfortunate because it’s always the LDS apologist that gives up first with similar reasons. There is still a very small part of me that wishes a member would somehow prove me wrong for leaving the church, but I realize it’s never going to happen.

Regarding the LDS black situation not leading to faith in its leaders, this is a valid and fair criticism. The corollary argument also applies. It does not lead one to have faith that Christ is guiding the Catholic Church through Popes when there have been things such as the inquisition and crusades done in the name of God.

Comparing the LDS prophet with the Pope is apples to oranges. Also you’re committing the tu quoque fallacy with this argument.

Normally I just walk away from such discussions on this site since there appears to me to be trolls looking for a fight. I appreciate those of you that have responded civilly and apologize if my tone may have been harsh.

I don’t see any trolls. I admit my tone is a bit harsh and sarcastic only because I’ve been dealing with family that have condemned me for desiring to join the Catholic Church. They refuse to listen to my side of the story.

The blacks and priesthood issue for LDS is probably the most difficult for LDS members to address since they are generally not taught about it except maybe briefly once every 4 years when Official Declaration # 2 is discussed in Sunday School. I.e. most do not know what to say about it and when they do talk about it they get it wrong most of the time. This is very annoying to me personally. This has started to change for the better in recent years though.

The issue is more of an issue with critics of the LDS church then it is with church members.

Blacks who investigate the LDS church have the same issues as everyone else.

Blacks who have an issue with past racism of any church stay in the 7 or 8 mostly all black churches which account for 80% of black Christians in the US. Which is to say that this is not just a Mormon issue.

It’s not an issue with critics; critics point out the obvious flaws in the apologetics. You don’t understand the mess that you’re creating - that doctrine has to be consistent with the standard works. The problem is, to what version of the standard works are you referring. If it’s the 1835 D&C, then Joseph’s revelation on plural marriage should be rejected because the original D&C 101 condemned polygamy. If it’s the 1876 version of the D&C, then the 1890 manifesto should be rejected because it contradicts Section 132 on plural marriage. In that case, you would also have to give credibility to the claims of fundamental Mormonism. It goes on and on; the doctrine of the LDS church is continuously evolving. If I consider your perspective on what constitutes LDS doctrine to be correct, then how can I have faith in the leaders of the church? How can I be so sure that what I believe today won’t be false doctrine tomorrow?
 
Not exactly my friend. I live in the Dominican Republic and anyone of the girls in the picture could pass for Dominicans. And why not, they have the same genes, SSA and Southern European.
Oh I’m sure folks from the Dominican Republic are just as unqualified to talk about the issue as those silly people from the US who only think they’re black, you know only people from Africa get to decide if a person is black or not. Who do you suppose he thinks gets to decide who’s Asian or White or Native American?:rolleyes:
 
Okay this is going to be my last post on this subject since I think the issue has been adequately discussed.

Regarding the LDS black situation not leading to faith in its leaders, this is a valid and fair criticism. The corollary argument also applies. It does not lead one to have faith that Christ is guiding the Catholic Church through Popes when there have been things such as the inquisition and crusades done in the name of God.
No, this is not the same thing (further, such comparisons also lead me to question LDS claims of apostasy). Further, many aren’t actually aware of the actual relationship between the Catholic Church and the above mentioned issues, instead focusing on the sensationalized versions of history.

The actual issue is that things like the blacks and the priesthood/temple issue in Mormonism really do not lend any credence to the LDS claim that the LDS Church is led by prophets. Your posts themselves also leads me to question who actually knows what is scriptural and/or doctrinal in the LDS Church, since it seems as if you’re saying you know things that the prophets couldn’t see at the time as far as the unscriptural nature of the priesthood ban. You say it was policy, they say it was doctrine, a “direct command from the Lord”. Was it or wasn’t it a direct command from the Lord? Do the prophets know what is and isn’t from the Lord?
The blacks and priesthood issue for LDS is probably the most difficult for LDS members to address since they are generally not taught about it except maybe briefly once every 4 years when Official Declaration # 2 is discussed in Sunday School. I.e. most do not know what to say about it and when they do talk about it they get it wrong most of the time. This is very annoying to me personally. This has started to change for the better in recent years though.
The issue is more of an issue with critics of the LDS church then it is with church members.
Not necessarily. I think that many members that are aware of problematic issues in the LDS Church such as Book of Mormon historicity, blacks and the priesthood, etc just put it up on the mental shelf to deal with at a later time, or believe that there must be an explanation that will come later. I’ve had this discussion many times with active members/friends.
Blacks who investigate the LDS church have the same issues as everyone else.
Being black in the LDS Church doesn’t necessarily correlate with the experiences of others in the LDS Church. I will say that I never experienced any racism or weird moments. Perhaps that’s because I was in a YSA ward in a major city, not in Utah. I also visited wards in California and had great experiences. I did wonder whether the older members were thinking about the past racist issues, especially since only a few decades ago, we wouldn’t have been able to attend the temple together, or bless and pass the sacrament together, etc. I know that other black members that I have talked to have also wondered whether some of the girls weren’t interested in dating them merely because they’re black (one guy is a Dominican, FWIW as far as the side discussion of who is and isn’t black 😉 ). Quite frankly, if the priesthood/temple ban never happened, I would’ve had somewhat of an easier time believing that the LDS Church was true (though there were other major issues anyway).
Blacks who have an issue with past racism of any church stay in the 7 or 8 mostly all black churches which account for 80% of black Christians in the US. Which is to say that this is not just a Mormon issue.
Perhaps. However as a black person, I don’t find the Catholic Church as having a racist past, whether or not you found some obscure quote from 1879. It really is laughable to attempt to compare the LDS Church to the Catholic Church on this matter. It is also somewhat well known amongst blacks that are aware of the LDS Church that it had a racist past against blacks. I know my parents brought it up with me, as well as some of my coworkers, who all said that they could never join a church with such a past institutional discriminatory practice that affected the religious life and eternal life of people.
 
I know that other black members that I have talked to have also wondered whether some of the girls weren’t interested in dating them merely because they’re black (one guy is a Dominican, FWIW as far as the side discussion of who is and isn’t black 😉 ).
Well our resident expert, the man from South Africa, (a bastion of racial tranquility and harmony yes?) has not pronounced judgement on the blackness of those from the Dominican Republic yet, but I’m certain he will judge them just as confused as the Americans so they of course are white too I guess. Silly LDS all this time with a ban on not blacks.😉
However as a black person
Have you cleared that statement with Wandile?😃
 
Well our resident expert, the man from South Africa, (a bastion of racial tranquility and harmony yes?) has not pronounced judgement on the blackness of those from the Dominican Republic yet, but I’m certain he will judge them just as confused as the Americans so they of course are white too I guess. Silly LDS all this time with a ban on not blacks.😉

Have you cleared that statement with Wandile?😃
Well I may have to, especially since a lot of people think I’m Dominican! 😛
 
Okay this is going to be my last post on this subject since I think the issue has been adequately discussed.

Well, if you say so…though you dodged most points, like the fallacies of comparing alleged prophets to men who do not claim to be prophets and talk to God…though I understand why you dodged

Regarding the LDS black situation not leading to faith in its leaders, this is a valid and fair criticism. The corollary argument also applies. It does not lead one to have faith that Christ is guiding the Catholic Church through Popes when there have been things such as the inquisition and crusades done in the name of God.

Again, one cannot compare the decisions made by men with the decisions allegedly made by God…and again, you are comparing very different issues, epochs, and people

Normally I just walk away from such discussions on this site since there appears to me to be trolls looking for a fight. I appreciate those of you that have responded civilly and apologize if my tone may have been harsh.

No one was looking for a fight. Just hoping you would not dodge issues

The blacks and priesthood issue for LDS is probably the most difficult for LDS members to address since they are generally not taught about it except maybe briefly once every 4 years when Official Declaration # 2 is discussed in Sunday School. I.e. most do not know what to say about it and when they do talk about it they get it wrong most of the time. This is very annoying to me personally. This has started to change for the better in recent years though.

Yes…it is hard to admit the LDS god was, and maybe is, racist

The issue is more of an issue with critics of the LDS church then it is with church members.

That is because the not LDS are not putting their heads in the sand

Blacks who investigate the LDS church have the same issues as everyone else.

Not true. As a former missionary, I can tell you it is different.

Blacks who have an issue with past racism of any church stay in the 7 or 8 mostly all black churches which account for 80% of black Christians in the US. Which is to say that this is not just a Mormon issue.

Again, not true. The other churches did not have prophets spewing racist comments
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top