Mormons, is it true...?

[PaulDupre]

Paul: I agree with most of what you say about ‘plausible deniability’. However, Bruce R. McConkie was never a “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” in the Mormon Church. (He was an Apostle, but he was never an LDS Prophet). Only the reigning Prophet of the LDS Church holds the title additional titles of 'Seer" and of “Revelator”.

Sorry flame, but you’re mistaken. At every General Conference, all members of the First Presidency and the Quorum Of the Twelve are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”.

Joseph Smith himself began applying this three-fold title to all of the living apostles. At the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in 1836, Joseph Smith invited the members of the Church to acknowledge the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 109).

God bless you,
Paul

 

[Kristine1957]

It was a much different LDS church when I was LDS in the 70’s and 80’s. Back then, Mormons were proud of their teachings and did not want to be known as Christians. Mormon Doctrine was very popular because it was the closest thing to a catechism the Mormons have ever had, and the members loved having a book that covered just about every aspect of Mormonism that they could use to answer arguments and questions about the faith. When I was at BYU in 1976, nearly everyone had a copy of Mormon Doctrine, and it was considered the last word in any dispute about LDS teachings.

Paul

Thank you Paul, thats what I had been trying to say… When Bruce McConkie wrote the Mormon Doctrine we all thought it was coming from authority therefore, it was offical doctrine. Since he was an Apostle.
To be honest I think alot of the members still think the books McConkie, Kimball, and several others have written is official unless the First Presidentcy speaks up and says it isnt and usually they dont speak up unless it is challanged…

 

[cubalibre]

When I graduated from high school in 1973 I learned my music teacher was a Mormon. A fundamenalist Christian who had accused me of not being Christian because I was Catholic was also accusing the teacher of not being a Christian. I felt some allegiance to this teacher because of this mutual attack. I remember when I later learned about Mormon’s racial prejudices. I was repulsed and could never talk to a Mormon again without their racial beliefs popping into my brain. I’ve never understood why people of color could ever join such a religion. Saludos, CubaLibre.

 

[Rye-Guy]

How could Blacks be “allowed in the church” before the 1970’s, if they could not participate fully in all of its functions, i.e. baptism of the dead, marraige…all of which occur in the temples. Wouldn’t that exclude them from recieving all of the Mormon “blessings” within the church???

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s right, which is why there were virtually zero blacks in the Mormon church prior to 1978. There still aren’t many. I have to wonder about the mental health of any black person who joins a church that taught for 148 years that blacks were spiritually inferior and unworthy to hold the priesthood.

God bless 'em,
Paul

 

[flameburns623]

Sorry flame, but you’re mistaken. At every General Conference, all members of the First Presidency and the Quorum Of the Twelve are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”.

Joseph Smith himself began applying this three-fold title to all of the living apostles. At the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in 1836, Joseph Smith invited the members of the Church to acknowledge the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 109).

God bless you,
Paul

Thanks Paul: I had not heard this previously. Perhaps one of our LDS apologists would like to clarify. I do know that, Apostle or not, there is considerable latitude for Mormon leadership to engage in speculation–hence the tales of ‘moon-men’ told by Joseph Smith himself, or the ‘Adam-God’ doctrine which Brigham Young expounded but which has never since been ‘officially taught’ in the Mormon Church. Rendering LDS theology rather like quicksilver: if you try to touch it or hold it it slips away in some unexpected direction.

 

[flameburns623]

That’s right, which is why there were virtually zero blacks in the Mormon church prior to 1978. There still aren’t many. I have to wonder about the mental health of any black person who joins a church that taught for 148 years that blacks were spiritually inferior and unworthy to hold the priesthood.

God bless 'em,
Paul

That’s a bit cheap. A lot of churches in America upheld doctrines of racial inferiority. A lot of individual Christians upheld such ideas, even in churches which did not officially teach them. And there are no small number of superficial things to admire about the Mormon Church, even in it’s theology. I can understand the appeal of Mormonism, even if I reject that it is, properly understood, a Christian denomination. I would not want to impugn the character, motives, or mental health of any person who chose to be a Latter-Day Saint. I would want to engage them in real and serious dialogue, so that they gain a clearer picture of what Mormonism is, what historic Christianity is, and how the two part company.

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s a bit cheap. A lot of churches in America upheld doctrines of racial inferiority. A lot of individual Christians upheld such ideas, even in churches which did not officially teach them. And there are no small number of superficial things to admire about the Mormon Church, even in it’s theology. I can understand the appeal of Mormonism, even if I reject that it is, properly understood, a Christian denomination. I would not want to impugn the character, motives, or mental health of any person who chose to be a Latter-Day Saint. I would want to engage them in real and serious dialogue, so that they gain a clearer picture of what Mormonism is, what historic Christianity is, and how the two part company.

You’re quite right of course - that would be the proper and charitable way to engage a LDS. I was just expressing the question that pops into my mind unbidden whenever I hear of a black person, like Gladys Knight, joining the Mormon church.

God bless,
Paul

 

[zerinus]

I had not heard this previously. Perhaps one of our LDS apologists would like to clarify.

Yes, all the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles of the Church are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church. However, Elder Bruce R McConkie was not an Apostle at the time that he wrote his book, Mormon Doctrine. He was a seventy.

I do know that, Apostle or not, there is considerable latitude for Mormon leadership to engage in speculation–

I wouldn’t describe it that way. It is not a “latitude to engage in speculation”. Nobody has any such “latitude” in the LDS Church. We just acknowledge them as mortal men who are liable to err in doctrine.

Rendering LDS theology rather like quicksilver: if you try to touch it or hold it it slips away in some unexpected direction.

That is not true either. LDS doctrine is rock solid. It is that which is taught in the standard works of the Church.

zerinus

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

How could Blacks be “allowed in the church” before the 1970’s, if they could not participate fully in all of its functions, i.e. baptism of the dead, marraige…all of which occur in the temples. Wouldn’t that exclude them from recieving all of the Mormon “blessings” within the church???

Yep, that was the criss LDS leadership was facing in the 1970s–exacerbated by the building of a new Temple in Brazil, largely being built by converts who would then be barred from entering the building once it was consecrated–because of their African heritage. So, like Polygamy (both it’s establishment for JSjr’s benefit and it’s abolishment for Utah’s statehood) the LDS President & Prophet got a “revelation” that contradicted the “revelations” of Joseph Smith & Brigham Young (Living prophet trumps dead prophet, more to come!)

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by zerinus

We just acknowledge them as mortal men who are liable to err in doctrine.

then right after, you say:

originally posted by zerinus

LDS doctrine is rock solid. It is that which is taught in the standard works of the Church.

Which is it???

 

[windsorco]

Blacks have always been able to be members, going back to the church’s founding in 1830. Black men could not hold the priesthood prior to June 8, 1978, when church president Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation allowing all worthy men to hold the priesthood, without regard to race.

 

[flameburns623]

Blacks have always been able to be members, going back to the church’s founding in 1830. Black men could not hold the priesthood prior to June 8, 1978, when church president Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation allowing all worthy men to hold the priesthood, without regard to race.

More precisely, a few black males did hold the Priesthood in the early days of the LDS Church. Elijah Abel, in fact, was an early black Apostle. See the following article, from a liberal LDS publishing house:

signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neither4.htm#Chapter4

Zerinus:

LDS doctrine is rock solid. It is that which is taught in the standard works of the Church.

Please let us be very honest. Some of your doctrines have changed over the years. How those doctrines have been interpreted by various First Presidencies has changed over the years. Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine is just one example among many of the ways that LDS theology has redefined itself over and over again. Moreover, you believe in an ‘open canon’. Your doctrine is perennially subject to change. I do not necessarily expect radical shifts in LDS doctrine any time soon, but such changes can happen and have happened in the past.

It is not a “latitude to engage in speculation”. Nobody has any such “latitude” in the LDS Church. We just acknowledge them as mortal men who are liable to err in doctrine.

Typically, Brigham Young’s ‘Adam-God’ comments and his ‘vision’ of moon-men are treated by LDS apologists as examples of an LDS leader engaging in speculative theology. Frankly, it is not disturbing to me at all to believe that LDS leaders are free to indulge themselves in such a fashion, even if their flights of fancy sometimes prove to be outrageously wrong. I would not have left the LDS Church because Brigham Young once speculated that moon-men dressed like Quakers reside on our friendly neighborhood satellite. It does however raise the issue for TBM’s as to when, exactly, an LDS leader is speaking authoritatively and ‘ex cathedra’ as the Catholics say; and when he is ‘just wondering’.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Yes, all the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles of the Church are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church.

:bowdown:

However, Elder Bruce R McConkie was not an Apostle at the time that he wrote his book, Mormon Doctrine.

**LDS doctrine is rock solid: :banghead: **

And NO COMMON SENSE is gonna chip away at it!!

 

[Kristine1957]

The Mormon Doctrine is “Rock Solid”… If thats the case then how come there are so changes in the doctrine?

 

[Tmaque]

To hold the entire LDS Church to account for Mormon Doctrine is rather like holding the RCC to account for the Dutch Catechism or for Richard P. McBrien’s Catholicism.

I will say that McConkie’s views probably represented the view of many of the most-traditional, most-conservative Mormons, and portions of it were and continue to be widely cited and studied. But since it has been censured within the LDS Church, one should have reservations about using it to represent ‘official’ LDS doctrine.

This is simply a misstatement of fact. The second edition of Mormon Doctrine was printed with the full knowledge and authority of the First Presidency of the LDS Church. The only difference between the 1st and 2nd editions is a gentler tone.

(wikisource)
In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie, states that:
“On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes. … My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction.”

To compare Fr. McBrien and “Catholicism” to Elder McConkie and “Mormon Doctrine” in terms of their respective church’s approval is absurd. “Mormon Doctrine” had virtually the LDS equivalent of an Impramatur.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

This is simply a misstatement of fact. The second edition of Mormon Doctrine was printed with the full knowledge and authority of the First Presidency of the LDS Church. The only difference between the 1st and 2nd editions is a gentler tone.

(wikisource)
In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie, states that:
“On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes. … My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction.”

To compare Fr. McBrien and “Catholicism” to Elder McConkie and “Mormon Doctrine” in terms of their respective church’s approval is absurd. “Mormon Doctrine” had virtually the LDS equivalent of an Impramatur.

to Tmaque for his good work!

Pax Christi

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I will say that McConkie’s views probably represented the view of many of the most-traditional, most-conservative Mormons, and portions of it were and continue to be widely cited and studied.

Really now, wait a couple of years and EVERYTHING gets "censured within the LDS church."

 

[agible]

Hello!
I found this forum as I was searching for more information about this book I own, the aforementioned 1958 1st Ed. copy of “Mormon Doctrine” (worth over $300 even in well-worn fair condition-wow! --[apparently, only a couple of thousand copies even exist]).

I just wanted to add to the discussion here that racist stereotypes are not useful in describing the phenomenon of Mormons and the former practice of discrimination with blacks and the priesthood.

For one thing, in the history of Mormonism, Mormons suffered much persecution, in part, because of their assertions in favor of the black race and their anti-slavery political stances, especially while in pro-slavery Missouri.

For another thing, there seems to be a plurality of Mormons, prior to 1978, that felt embarassment for this curious discrimination practice. Even in the 1950’s there were some who tried to excuse the practice as a burden placed upon them, and not a doctrine they welcomed.

There were blacks that crossed West as pioneers to Utah and welcomed among the Mormons in Utah. I recently read a story of a black Mormon family that thrived and prospered in Holladay, Utah, around the year 1900, even to the point of becoming the modern equivalent of multi-millionaires and respected members of the Church and community… but barred from holding the priesthood (what gives?).

Like mentioned before, there were even some blacks who held the priesthood and even leadership at the time of Joseph Smith and nobody knows quite what to make of the whole practice and exactly when blacks began to be denied those blessings.

I certainly don’t have many answers on the subject, but to say it was nothing but racism is not at all accurate.