Blacks and the LDS Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Janderich said:
I believe the difficulty lies in understanding Joseph in relation to Paul. Was Paul a racist? Parish the thought. Was Joseph Smith a racist? Of course not. They thought the same in this matter. What then is at the heart of the issue.
  1. Paul clearly does not tell slaves to rebel or masters to release their slaves.
  2. Paul was speaking what the Lord would have him say.
  3. The Lord at that time and at that moment accepted that slaves should serve their masters and masters should treat slaves with dignity.
I cannot entertain any other notion, Paul was following the will of the Lord. If this is the case then why is it so? Perhaps, the Lord can only work with people to the level of their capacity. This appears consistent throughout scripture. For instance, the Law of Moses was given because the people could not live the higher law. Did the Lord want the Israelites at that time to live the Law of Moses? No! He wanted more but they were not willing to live it. Perhaps it is the same way with us. No doubt there are abhorrent practices that in 150 years from now will seem barbaric. Maybe it will be war, maybe the slaughter of innocent animals for food we don’t need. I might take as a further example the issue with abject poverty and extreme riches found in the world and even among Christians. Would the Lord have it be this way? No! But as a people we are unwilling/unable to live a higher law. So the Lord asks us to give but he can only ask us to do what we will.

However, the Lord never stops trying to lead his people to a higher plane. In order to do this there must be continuing revelation. The Lord has always governed his church this way and will continue to do so. He did so in Paul’s day and he does today. As people learn, the Lord gives additional truth. If a new command is revealed are prophets and apostles to be blamed for doing the Lord’s will? No.

It is the same with Priesthood. Priesthood must be given by the Lord and He gives line upon line, precept upon precept. Providing more truths, commandments, and responsibility as the people are willing to accept it. Do I know the mind of the Lord or his prophets on all matters? No. But the truth stares me in the face and the conclusion is inescapable.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you have got it wrong. While we take Paul to be a saint, he was not God and was not perfect. Paul was a Jew and Jewish culture was very much a part of him. He had at times to remind himself and that he was a Christian first and foremost and that all were equal under Christ. Peter himself had to be reminded by God in a vision that he was to preach to all, when he was as a Jew, reluctant to mix with non-Jews.

God has given us free will. The fact that there was and is slavery and racism in this world does not mean that God does does find them evil.
 
severus68 said:
Your facts are correct but it has to be made clear that slavery of any kind should not be acceptable to Christians.
Click to expand...
I think the point has been made that Paul’s mission was to preach Christ, not to become a political activist and change the Jewish and Roman cultures. Of course all types of slavery are unacceptable but the fact that Paul does not preach against the social structure does not mean that he approved of slavery as a Christian. This argument is being used in order to justify Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s approval of the slavery of blacks. It was okay in the Bible therefore there was nothing wrong with the LDS approving of it. This is a completely erroneous view.
 
Gordon B. Hinkley said “No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.”

Now, based on this quote, a LDS prophet has stated that Joseph, Brigham and the other LDS Leaders quoted on page 1 of this thread were not to be considered Disciples of Christ. And if not disciples, certainly they could not be prophets.
 
TexanKnight said:
Gordon B. Hinkley said “No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.”

Now, based on this quote, a LDS prophet has stated that Joseph, Brigham and the other LDS Leaders quoted on page 1 of this thread were not to be considered Disciples of Christ. And if not disciples, certainly they could not be prophets.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they viewed them as disparaging remarks. But rather as divine truths. No more disparaging to them than saying a person who commits adultery is going to hell.

I can’t see that the view has changed among LDS today.
 
RebeccaJ said:
I don’t think they viewed them as disparaging remarks. But rather as divine truths. No more disparaging to them than saying a person who commits adultery is going to hell.

I can’t see that the view has changed among LDS today.
Click to expand...
but they did not just say that. The things they said were VERY disparaging. And no honest Mormon would disagree
 
RebeccaJ said:
Has the Mormon church repudiated their prophets?
Click to expand...
nope…and that is my point. A prophet said people who say whgat joseph and Brigham said are not Disciples of Christ.

and the truth CAN be disparaging.

dis·par·ag·ing   [dih-spar-i-jing]
adjective
that disparages; tending to belittle or bring reproach upon: disparaging remarks.

dis·par·age   [dih-spar-ij]
verb (used with object), dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing.
1.
to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle: Do not disparage good manners.
2.
to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of:

Does not say it has to be untruthful.
 
TexanKnight said:
nope…and that is my point. A prophet said people who say whgat joseph and Brigham said are not Disciples of Christ.

and the truth CAN be disparaging.

dis·par·ag·ing   [dih-spar-i-jing]
adjective
that disparages; tending to belittle or bring reproach upon: disparaging remarks.

dis·par·age   [dih-spar-ij]
verb (used with object), dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing.
1.
to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle: Do not disparage good manners.
2.
to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of:

Does not say it has to be untruthful.
Click to expand...
I agree it is disparaging, I don’t see that Mormons view it that way.
 
RebeccaJ said:
I agree it is disparaging, I don’t see that Mormons view it that way.
Click to expand...
Well, if they have to change the definitions of their prophet’s words to justify earlier prophets, it sorta proves they are a false church…right?
 
TexanKnight said:
Well, if they have to change the definitions of their prophet’s words to justify earlier prophets, it sorta proves they are a false church…right?
Click to expand...
I think they try to make sense of what doesn’t make sense. People tend to ignore facts that don’t align to what they believe. It is an endless loop, with layer on layer of deception. A lot of it self deception.

After many years of conversations with Mormons, I am convinced they are not interested in truth. Only what keeps their “testimony” alive. Truth is inconvenient to that goal. They can’t hear it, and don’t want to hear it.

We can only pray for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top