Mormon apostle's racist letter to George Romney

[RebeccaJ]

For how LDS view their leaders yes…so LDS in Young’s time would have followed their prophet.

For the comparison to Moses, no, it doesn’t answer my question. Moses spoke in God’s name, against the will of God, and later repented. Of course he found forgiveness, but there was a consequence…he never set foot in the land of promise.

Your view seems to be that prophets can do whatever they like, teach false teachings in God’s name, and know no consequences.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

For how LDS view their leaders yes…so LDS in Young’s time would have followed their prophet.

Well, no; but at least they would not have publicly opposed him. Private face to face opposition is another matter entirely. There’s nothing wrong with personally, face to face, telling your priesthood leader that you think he’s just plain dead wrong. There’s even a sort of public mechanism, though it’s rarely used, where you can stand in opposition to the appointment, or the retention of a particular priesthood leader. I’ve only seen that used twice in my life. And no, I would not talk more about it.

For the comparison to Moses, no, it doesn’t answer my question

Of course not. If you look at the context, the cited matter, and the time stamp, that’s clearly not the question that I was replying to.

Moses found forgiveness. He performed a lot of miracles. What are the miracles that Young performed, and was he repentant of his racial views?

Asked and answered, Rebecca:
"Pete:

There are other considerations that establish that BY was a prophet, despite his imperfections. But to list them here would seem like proselytizing, which is against the forum rules, and as a mormon, I’m committed to keeping the law of the land.

---

Your view seems to be that prophets can do whatever they like, teach false teachings in God’s name, and know no consequences.

Your view seems to be that if a prophet doesn’t stop being a prophet, and having his entire prophetic record erased, that the prophet “knows no consequences.” Your view clearly conflicts with the Bible record.

• Moses was banned from entering the Promised land.
• Jonah was swallowed by a whale and barfed out on Nineveh’s beach.
• Peter, for his racist refusal to eat with Gentiles, was chided by Paul in front of the other apostles.
• At least two prophets in the book of Judges ended up actually dead because of their various failings…

Need I go on, or have I made my point? There are consequences, and yet the prophet’s prophesies aren’t retroactively negated.

 

[NewSeeker]

Your view seems to be that if a prophet doesn’t stop being a prophet, and having his entire prophetic record erased, that the prophet “knows no consequences.” Your view clearly conflicts with the Bible record.

• Moses was banned from entering the Promised land.
• Jonah was swallowed by a whale and barfed out on Nineveh’s beach.
• Peter, for his racist refusal to eat with Gentiles, was chided by Paul in front of the other apostles.
• At least two prophets in the book of Judges ended up actually dead because of their various failings…

Need I go on, or have I made my point? There are consequences, and yet the prophet’s prophesies aren’t retroactively negated.

You have not made your point. The issue is about whether prophets (like BY) can teach false doctrine over the pulpit. You cite OT and NT prophets’ behavioral problems to illustrate that ancient prophets had failings too, but the issue isn’t whether prophets can misbehave (they’re not perfect) and still retain their prophetic credentials. Do you have any examples of OT or NT prophets teaching false doctrine?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Do you have any examples of OT or NT prophets teaching false doctrine?

Of course not, because any false doctrine they taught would not have been canonized into the OT or New T. There are plenty of books out there purporting to be scripture, which were not accepted by Ezra as part of the Tenach (Old Testament) and plenty of books which your church fathers correctly excluded from the New Testament.

You likewise cannot demonstrate that any false doctrine that BY taught ever made it into the Doctrine and Covenants.

So what’s the problem?

 

[christianley]

I am just curious but was the Catholic Church a leader in the civil rights movement?

All I can find is this:

encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1086

The Catholic Church’s role does not seem to be a shining example either.

 

[NewSeeker]

Of course not, because any false doctrine they taught would not have been canonized into the OT or New T. There are plenty of books out there purporting to be scripture, which were not accepted by Ezra as part of the Tenach (Old Testament) and plenty of books which your church fathers correctly excluded from the New Testament.

You likewise cannot demonstrate that any false doctrine that BY taught ever made it into the Doctrine and Covenants.

So what’s the problem?

So then, it follows that anything a Mormon prophet or the First Presidency speaking in unison might say over the pulpit publicly could, in principle, actually be false doctrine - unless it is canonized in the D&C. Let’s take the Proclamation on the Family as an example. It has not yet been added as Official Declaration No. 3. It could still turn out to contain false doctrine. Only time, and a future decision to revise and/or add it to the D&C (or not) will tell.

 

[christianley]

So then, it follows that anything a Mormon prophet or the First Presidency speaking in unison might say over the pulpit publicly could, in principle, actually be false doctrine - unless it is canonized in the D&C. Let’s take the Proclamation on the Family as an example. It has not yet been added as Official Declaration No. 3. It could still turn out to contain false doctrine. Only time, and a future decision to revise and/or add it to the D&C (or not) will tell.

Could a Pope ever say anything that was false doctrine while Pope?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

So then, it follows that anything a Mormon prophet or the First Presidency speaking in unison might say over the pulpit publicly could, in principle, actually be false doctrine - unless it is canonized in the D&C. Let’s take the Proclamation on the Family as an example. It has not yet been added as Official Declaration No. 3. It could still turn out to contain false doctrine. Only time, and a future decision to revise and/or add it to the D&C (or not) will tell.

Mostly correct. Unlike some of BY’s theories, the Proc has been approved by the full Quorum of the Twelve, and only the last step of Common Consent is lacking. But you’re technically correct that the church could disavow the doctrine still, although I can’t think of anything off-hand that was approved by the full Q12 and didn’t eventually pass common consent. The only caveat I have to what you said is that the D&C need not be the final book of scripture, and if prophesies are correct, will not be the last book of scripture to emerge.

So far all revelations that were canonized through common consent in the last 150 years have been added to the D&C, so it’s a fair assumption that the Proc will end up being “Official Proclamation # 3.” But as explained above, that’s not necessary; only Common Consent remains necessary to making the Proc doctrine.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Then how is it the LDS Church followed the race-based teachings of Brigham Young? It wasn’t up to the individual, it was institutionalized. For example, someone couldn’t just decide they didn’t like Young’s teachings and ordain a Black man to the Mormon priesthood. How is this not a case of everyone being forced to follow a false teaching?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Then how is it the LDS Church followed the race-based teachings of Brigham Young? It wasn’t up to the individual, it was institutionalized.

The prophet can set policies, but he cannot canonize doctrine.

Besides, BY never even claimed a revelation banning blacks from the priesthood. He claimed that it was an interpretation of what Joseph Smith had taught, but JS had ordained blacks to the priesthood.

 

[SteveVH]

Then how is it the LDS Church followed the race-based teachings of Brigham Young? It wasn’t up to the individual, it was institutionalized. For example, someone couldn’t just decide they didn’t like Young’s teachings and ordain a Black man to the Mormon priesthood. How is this not a case of everyone being forced to follow a false teaching?

It wasn’t a false teaching. God just changed his mind.

 

[SteveVH]

The prophet can set policies, but he cannot canonize doctrine.

Besides, BY never even claimed a revelation banning blacks from the priesthood. He claimed that it was an interpretation of what Joseph Smith had taught, but JS had ordained blacks to the priesthood.

This is a new one for me. Do you have any actual evidence that JS ordained blacks to the priesthood? I’ve never heard this before.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The prophet can set policies, but he cannot canonize doctrine.

Besides, BY never even claimed a revelation banning blacks from the priesthood. He claimed that it was an interpretation of what Joseph Smith had taught, but JS had ordained blacks to the priesthood.

Young claimed his “policies” were divine commandment, maybe you don’t believe him, but I know people who did, and still do.

 

[followingtheway]

Mormonism has had a history of racism…

Through their scriptures:

i4m.com/think/history/mormon_racism.htm

Through their prophets:

http://www.i4m.com/think/comments/mormon-racism.htm

They used to have several racist beliefs on where blacks came from:

1. 
   *]They believed that during the war in Heaven, God’s angels became white people, the Devil’s angels were denies human bodies and became demons, and those nuetral in the battle became black people.
   *]They believed that black skin was the mark of Cain
   *]They believed that Ham’s cursed descendants became black people.
   
   (I’m wondering what their explanation for Asian people, was then. lol )
   Blacks where denied the priesthood back then. They say they’re not racist now however.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It wasn’t a false teaching. God just changed his mind.

Yeah, I don’t know why I’m wasting my time. The revisionist baloney doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Young claimed his “policies” were divine commandment, maybe you don’t believe him, but I know people who did, and still do.

So do I. And if we look hard enough, I’m sure we can find some Catholics that think that an unbaptized baby goes straight to hell. That doesn’t mean that it’s official Catholic doctrine.

Yeah, I don’t know why I’m wasting my time.

I could venture a guess, but that would not be polite.

Rebecca, having read what you’ve said about us on various threads, I hope that the good Catholics here who know mormons, will realize that your description of the mormon people doesn’t match up to their experience with mormons. Hopefully they will take the next logical step and question your assessment of the doctrine as well as of the people.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

They used to have several racist beliefs on where blacks came from:

1. 
   *]They believed that during the war in Heaven, God’s angels became white people, the Devil’s angels were denies human bodies and became demons, and those nuetral in the battle became black people.
   *]They believed that black skin was the mark of Cain
   *]They believed that Ham’s cursed descendants became black people.

1. 
   What you said is very misleading, ftw, because while some LDS leaders did propose those doctrines, other LDS leaders rejected them. There was a conflict in the opinions of the leaders.
   
   What you said is like claiming that “the Catholics believed that unbaptized infants went straight to hell, or to limbo.” Some did, some didn’t.
   
   Also, the theory that Ham’s descendants became black people did NOT originate with the LDS church. That hateful rationalization for slavery appeared in the Talmud, Origen taught it in his Homiles on Genesis (185-c. 254), and the doctrine appeared in 4th century Syriac work Cave of Treasures, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium (9th Century); it was pronounced by Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch … need I go on?
   
   No LDS leader ever claimed that garbage as revelation. We got it from you guys. Yeah, shame on us that any of us believed it, but shame on you for not knowing your own history. Again.

 

[SteveVH]

So do I. And if we look hard enough, I’m sure we can find some Catholics that think that an unbaptized baby goes straight to hell. That doesn’t mean that it’s official Catholic doctrine.

But we are speaking of the leader of your church at that time, not some ignorant, uncatechized member of your church. I won’t go into the theological theories surrounding unbaptized babies as we would be straying way off topic, but your comparison is erroneous. We are speaking of the leader of a church making public statements concerning the beliefs of his church. Big difference.

Rebecca, having read what you’ve said about us on various threads, I hope that the good Catholics here who know mormons, will realize that your description of the mormon people doesn’t match up to their experience with mormons. Hopefully they will take the next logical step and question your assessment of the doctrine as well as of the people.

Not that Rebecca needs me to defend her, but I have seen many more of her posts than have you. Having had numerous discussions with Mormons myself, I would say that her description of Mormon practices and beliefs are spot on.

This is not a statement about the character of Mormons. It is a statement about the beliefs and religious practices of Mormons.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Rebecca, having read what you’ve said about *us *on various threads, I hope that the good Catholics here who know mormons, will realize that your description of the mormon people doesn’t match up to their experience with mormons. Hopefully they will take the next logical step and question your assessment of the doctrine as well as of the people.

This is not a statement about the character of Mormons.

No, what she said on this thread isn’t about the character of Mormons.

Having had numerous discussions with Mormons myself, I would say that her description of Mormon practices and beliefs are spot on.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[followingtheway]

What you said is very misleading,

It really isn’t.

because while some LDS leaders did propose those doctrines, other LDS leaders rejected them. There was a conflict in the opinions of the leaders.

What you said is like claiming that “the Catholics believed that unbaptized infants went straight to hell, or to limbo.” Some did, some didn’t.

Also, the theory that Ham’s descendants became black people did NOT originate with the LDS church. That hateful rationalization for slavery appeared in the Talmud, Origen taught it in his Homiles on Genesis (185-c. 254), and the doctrine appeared in 4th century Syriac work Cave of Treasures, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium (9th Century); it was pronounced by Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch … need I go on?

All of what you said doesn’t matter, considering that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, where all of your doctrines come from, was racist himself.

Joseph Smith first president, prophet, and founder of the Mormon Church:

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 218; emphasis added).

“Thursday, 8–Held Mayor’s court and tried two negroes for attempting to marry two white women: fined one $25, and the other $5” (ibid., 6: 210).

and the rebellious n***ers in the slave states. . . " (Millennial Star, 22:602; emphasis added).

shame on us that any of us believed it, but shame on you for not knowing your own history.

You really shouldn’t make assumptions about what I do and don’t know.