Blacks and the LDS Priesthood

[TexanKnight]

Especially when the Book of Mormon itself makes the claim it was the Lamanites who were cursed with dark skin…not people of African decent. LDS apologetic writings often take biblical verses out of context to prove a doctrinal point…and are “called” on it…but when a verse is taken out of context from the Book of Mormon by an LDS leader, it’s “ok” because it just happens to support a very negative and sad part of LDS belief and history…

Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

Alma 3:9 “whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) “set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed. . . .”

Alma 23:18 “[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites) " became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."

Seems to me Lamanites were cursed in the BoM…but hey…far be it from me to question texts removed from context to prove a point…whether by LDS leadership or an ex-Mormon:shrug:

I totally understand. You know more about the meaning of the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I should always listen to Quakers over LDS prophets about what LDS writings mean. Why should I think otherwise?

 

[jrtrent]

Especially when the Book of Mormon itself makes the claim it was the Lamanites who were cursed with dark skin…not people of African decent.

My understanding is that there were two marks, one for descendants of Cain and a later one, not quite as dark, for the Lamanites. The curse of not receiving the priesthood (lifted in 1978) was only for descendants of Cain, not the Lamanites.

I probably haven’t read the thread carefully enough, but what Book of Mormon passages did LDS officials apply to Africans?

TexanKnight started this thread as a spinoff from another thread in which some side issues cropped up. Blacks and the priesthood was one, and the other was the origins of the native Americans found here during the time of the great explorers. What I was taught in the late 1970’s when investigating the LDS church was that all surviving native Americans were descended from the Lamanites. Not too surprising since that was when Spencer Kimball headed the church, and even Mormon apologists state that “President Kimball often made statements which supported the view that Lehi was the exclusive progenitor of all native Americans.”

 

[Publisher]

My understanding is that there were two marks, one for descendants of Cain and a later one, not quite as dark, for the Lamanites. The curse of not receiving the priesthood (lifted in 1978) was only for descendants of Cain, not the Lamanites.

I probably haven’t read the thread carefully enough, but what Book of Mormon passages did LDS officials apply to Africans?

TexanKnight started this thread as a spinoff from another thread in which some side issues cropped up. Blacks and the priesthood was one, and the other was the origins of the native Americans found here during the time of the great explorers. What I was taught in the late 1970’s when investigating the LDS church was that all surviving native Americans were descended from the Lamanites. Not too surprising since that was when Spencer Kimball headed the church, and even Mormon apologists state that “President Kimball often made statements which supported the view that Lehi was the exclusive progenitor of all native Americans.”

You’ll need to address friend TexasKnight. My post centered on the quotes from the Book of Mormon were speaking specifically about the Lamanites…not Africans…the “mark of Cain” was not even addressed as applying to the Lamanites according to the Book of Mormon.

Per friend TexasKnight, the LDS leaders used the Book of Mormon passages refering to the darkening of the skin of the Lamanites to justify the exclusion of African decent from the priesthood…my “contention” was the Book of Mormon does not address the “mark of Cain” given to African decents…and to quote the BoM to do so was taking those passages out of context and “proof texting”.

From a Quaker perspective, to claim those passages were related to African decent and not exclussivly to the Lamanites was wrong to do so and did not speak to truth …you can read his responses.

 

[jrtrent]

Per friend TexasKnight, the LDS leaders used the Book of Mormon passages refering to the darkening of the skin of the Lamanites to justify the exclusion of African decent from the priesthood…my “contention” was the Book of Mormon does not address the “mark of Cain” given to African decents…and to quote the BoM to do so was taking those passages out of context and “proof texting”. /QUOTE

I think I agree with you with respect to applying Lamanite passages to Africans, but I didn’t see any references from the Book of Mormon. The only scripture reference I saw was to the Book of Abraham, which is from the Pearl of Great Price. So I’m still curious about which Book of Mormon passages were applied by LDS leaders to the descendants of Cain. That’s what I’m not seeing.

 

[Publisher]

I think I agree with you with respect to applying Lamanite passages to Africans, but I didn’t see any references from the Book of Mormon. The only scripture reference I saw was to the Book of Abraham, which is from the Pearl of Great Price. ** So I’m still curious about which Book of Mormon passages were applied by LDS leaders to the descendants of Cain. That’s what I’m not seeing.**

Perhaps friend TexasKnight can shed light on which passages from the Book of Mormon address them. From my readings, the only passage that could address the decendents of Cain IS in the Book of Abraham…not the Book of Mormon…but then as friend TexasKnight said…I’m a Quaker…not a Mormon.

 

[TexanKnight]

Perhaps friend TexasKnight can shed light on which passages from the Book of Mormon address them. From my readings, the only passage that could address the decendents of Cain IS in the Book of Abraham…not the Book of Mormon…but then as friend TexasKnight said…I’m a Quaker…not a Mormon.

Nothing wrong with being Quaker…Nixon was Quaker.

I was just amused that you acted like you knew more about the book than the guy who wrote it.

 

[Publisher]

Nothing wrong with being Quaker…Nixon was Quaker.

I was just amused that you acted like you knew more about the book than the guy who wrote it.

Friend I don’t know that I “acted”, I stated that based on the context of the Book of Mormon passages, the darkening of the skin did not refer to those of African decent, but to the Lamanites, the decendents of Lehi, due to their wickedness…and according to the Book of Mormon, quoted in context, nothing concerning African decent was indicated in any way.

 

[jrtrent]

Perhaps friend TexasKnight can shed light on which passages from the Book of Mormon address them. From my readings, the only passage that could address the decendents of Cain IS in the Book of Abraham…not the Book of Mormon…but then as friend TexasKnight said…I’m a Quaker…not a Mormon.

I’m not being clear. I don’t see where TexasKnight used any Book of Mormon references in his posts; so I don’t understand the basis for your complaint that Book of Mormon references should not be applied to descendants of Cain. Maybe he did, but I’m not seeing them.

 

[Publisher]

I’m not being clear. I don’t see where TexasKnight used any Book of Mormon references in his posts; so I don’t understand the basis for your complaint that Book of Mormon references should not be applied to descendants of Cain. Maybe he did, but I’m not seeing them.

Post #2 of this thread…"TexasKnight…essentially, Joseph claimed (**and so did the Book of Mormon **till it was clear it would never happen) that blacks would become white.if they accepted the Book of Mormon. It never happened.

And how did LDs leaders feel about blacks?

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805 – 1844):"

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

My understanding was that American Indians always were eligible for the LDS priesthood, because the Mormons held them to be the descendents of Hebrews.

My other understanding is that the ban on African heritage priests occured during the Mormon’s stay in Missouri, after some non Mormon Missourians became enraged over a few examples of free African-American LDS priests–and Smith had an offical revelation, incorporated into Doctrine and Covenants which made it de facto as binding and inspired as anything in the Book of Mormon.

I wish Richard Abane (One Nation Under Gods) still posted here

 

[Mystophilus]

Not that I’m casting aspersions against some of the Protestant churches I visited during that time, but it did make me wonder which churches were truly prejudiced.

or which individuals. At one point, I ran into one person online who was earnestly trying to argue that Moses’ wife, despite being an Ethiopian (Num 12:1) could not be black because that would be “shameful”. At another, I ran into someone else who insisted that, when the Song of Songs says that the Beloved is “black”, it only means “tanned” (SS 1:5, cf 5:11). A very dear American friend whom I had first met online eventually felt the need to “confess” to being a “POC”, a term which seems entirely outlandish to me: everyone is coloured, which is good, because I would rather not see people’s muscle fibres or their internal organs.

 

[Porknpie]

Especially when the Book of Mormon itself makes the claim it was the Lamanites who were cursed with dark skin…not people of African decent. LDS apologetic writings often take biblical verses out of context to prove a doctrinal point…and are “called” on it…but when a verse is taken out of context from the Book of Mormon by an LDS leader, it’s “ok” because it just happens to support a very negative and sad part of LDS belief and history…

I just have to ask…why would a Mormon prophet take something out of context? We are discussing a subject that was “doctrine” correct?

 

[Hokomai]

LDS: no blacks in the priesthood. Changed their mind. RCC: no women in the priesthood. No change of mind. RCCs on CAF heap criticism on LDS for its now-abolished attitude. Hmmmm.

 

[TexanKnight]

LDS: no blacks in the priesthood. Changed their mind. RCC: no women in the priesthood. No change of mind. RCCs on CAF heap criticism on LDS for its now-abolished attitude. Hmmmm.

You truly don’t see the difference? How odd

 

[TrueLight]

This is why I would always smirk when I would see young, LDS, white boys with backpacks come into our neighborhoods trying to evangelize us. What nerve!

 

[Hokomai]

You truly don’t see the difference? How odd

Explain it to me.

 

[scipio337]

LDS: no blacks in the priesthood. Changed their mind. RCC: no women in the priesthood. No change of mind. RCCs on CAF heap criticism on LDS for its now-abolished attitude. Hmmmm.

“Priesthood” isn’t required for entrace into the “Celestial Kingdom” for Catholicism. What you had in effect was institutionalized racism. Blacks and Amer Indians weren’t of the same level, and not eligible for the highest salvation.

What you mention is a difference of vocation.

Got false analogy?

 

[Hokomai]

“Priesthood” isn’t required for entrace into the “Celestial Kingdom” for Catholicism. What you had in effect was institutionalized racism. Blacks and Amer Indians weren’t of the same level, and not eligible for the highest salvation.

What you mention is a difference of vocation.

Got false analogy?

Does it matter to what it gives you entrance? It is a difference in status based on, in the one case, race, and in the other, sex. One is institutionalized racism - I agree. why is the other not institutionalized sexism?

 

[scipio337]

Does it matter to what it gives you entrance? It is a difference in status based on, in the one case, race, and in the other, sex. One is institutionalized racism - I agree. why is the other not institutionalized sexism?

Because, as I pointed out before, it is a difference of vocation. That difference is “kind” of vocation, not “degree”. There is no Catholic doctrine stating men are “delightsome”, or that women are “loathsome”, and in the end, both share in the exact same promises of Christ.

 

[TexanKnight]

Does it matter to what it gives you entrance? It is a difference in status based on, in the one case, race, and in the other, sex. One is institutionalized racism - I agree. why is the other not institutionalized sexism?

I doubt you do not understand the difference. But, I will play along.

Being a Catholic Priest is a job. Being an LDS Priest is a natural progression for every male.

You will not find statements bashing women in the Catholic Church like you you can find statements bashing blacks in the LDS Church. A great number of our Saints are women. We Honor Mary.

But to withhold the Preisthood in the LDS Church is horrible. Not every male in the Catholic Church will be a Preist…but every male in the LDS WILL be…every family is supposed to have a priesthood holder. It is the father/husband. To withhold that due to race was absolutely stunning.

By the same token, The Catholic Church has always had black Priests.

But since you want to play the game, how many LDS Bishops are female? How many Apostles? How many Prophets? How many members of the Seventy? How many Patriarchs?