Preisthood leaving Moromism

  • Thread starter Thread starter alterserver_07
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alterserver_07

Guest
When BY was prophet, he said that the priesthood would leave the mormon church the instant that people of darker skin were ordained priest, and that was to stand forever, never to be changed by future prophets. Now since then, the priesthood has been allowed into the priesthood of the mormon church, so has the priesthood left the church and all hell is against everybody, or is this just another misunderstanding?
 
40.png
alterserver_07:
When BY was prophet, he said that the priesthood would leave the mormon church the instant that people of darker skin were ordained priest, and that was to stand forever, never to be changed by future prophets. Now since then, the priesthood has been allowed into the priesthood of the mormon church, so has the priesthood left the church and all hell is against everybody, or is this just another misunderstanding?
Click to expand...
Let’s look at little closer at this claim. Please post your reference and we can go from there…
 
I got it from a tape so give me a little bit so I can get that reference for you.
 
While waiting for alter_server to return with his source, I would like to add that Brigham Young did teach that interracial marriage was against the law of God for all time, and that it would deprive a man of his LDS priesthood and even death.

Brigham Young:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot, This will always be so” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, page 110).

As recently as 1967, the LDS re-iterated this belief:

“To go against this commandment of God would be to sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death… It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same… To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a 'Nation of Priesthood holders” (The Church and the Negro, pp. 54-55).

Of course, the LDS allows interracial marriage now, while not overly fond of it. No penalties are given for the breaking of this eternal “law of God.” I’m wondering. How can something be the the law of God that will “always be so” and yet be changed? I can understand continuous public revelation (even though I don’t accept it), but I cannot understand how the unchangeable God (Heb. 13:8) can break his own eternal laws.

Could it be that Brigham Young and subsequent LDS presidents were not “prophets” in the strict sense of the world, but at best, just inspired leaders, or at worst, just another leader of a religion set up by man? One could consider either possibility, particularly the latter.

In Christ,

Adam
 
Adam,

You are right on the money. Examples of LDS racism can be found in their scriptures, prophecy, official publications, sermons, etc. It wasn’t until they started winning dark skinned converts that they miraculously had a new “revelation” regarding the priesthood. Its kinda like their “revelation” on polygamy that was coincidentally timed with thier admission to the Union (the US wouldn’t grant Utah statehood if the territory allowed polygamy).
 
Yes, the LDS Church’s “revelations” changing previous practices does seem to co-incide with the attitude of the culture at large. I’m not going to say that this, de facto, disqualifies them as true revelations. However, I do find it to be in an alien spirit than what we find the Savior teaching in the NT. Matthew 5 speaks of people being blessed when they are persecuted, and the book of Acts says the apostles counted it an honor to suffer for the Name of Jesus (Acts 5:41). We see no sign of backing down under cultural pressure, but of preaching the hard teachings in the face of a hostile crowd. This same spirit is carried on in the early Church when the Roman Empire deemed us cannibals for our teaching on the Holy Eucharist. Our doctrine was explained, but not put on the shelf until later times. In Mormonism it seems like the doctrines are bended to make the culture accept the Church more.

Of course, the LDS can always say that it was “God’s time” for the change to take place. If this is the case, it seems like God began to want things changed when the LDS had ran out of places to run to. Nobody dared say that a revelation ending polygamy would come while the LDS were in Nauvoo. Of course, there was no need for it to happen as Brigham Young could bring them to Utah. But when the U.S. began denying the Utah territory statehood due to polygamy, and the LDS didn’t have anywhere else to run to, God deemed they should “shelf” earthly polygamy, because, of course, God doesn’t want the LDS to sacrifice the rights of statehood, yet the early apostles and Christians sacrificed their lives for every jot-and-tittle of the Gospel.

A similar thing can be applied to the removal of the ban of blacks to the LDS priesthood in the 1970s. Like I said earlier, I can understand continuous public revelation, but isn’t the whole point of having a “continuous” line of revelation be to make the Church’s practice and belief more and more grounded in the truth. Why has the LDS Church used it as a blanket to quit practicing some beliefs than came from that very channel of revelation?

Sorry, if I sound antagonistic, but I guess I feel strongly about this. Hehehe.

In Christ,

Adam
 
Adam,

Ya know, for a man not quite old enough to drink you are very articulate. My hat’s off to you :tiphat:

Since you mentioned early Christian martyrs, I think it is funny how the LDS church calls Smith a martyr. Websters defines a martyr as: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion. How is Smith’s death martyrdom? What Christian martyr took up arms to defend their life?

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain, Phil. 1:21
 
Okay, here it is, the Journal of Discourse says that it shall always be that death apon the spot when a mormon marries a darker skinned person. And the leaving of the priesthood was an Address to the people of the church in 1852. So those are my refernces.
 
40.png
alterserver_07:
Okay, here it is, the Journal of Discourse says that it shall always be that death apon the spot when a mormon marries a darker skinned person. And the leaving of the priesthood was an Address to the people of the church in 1852. So those are my refernces.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but see the LDS Church was founded to avoid the Apostate Church and from what I can see, it has itself gone apostate which is why it has the FLDS in the background. The FLDS do not allow black members, they still practice polygamy and avoid the LDS. They view the LDS as having been corrupted by society as well. So the people upholding the Church from the Anti Church (Catholicism) have now become an anti Church themselves, I guess. And I suppose that cycle will continue indefinately as far as I can see.And I suppose the LDS do everything they can to distance themselves from FLDS- because the FLDS would be accusing the LDS of apostasy. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic for so many souls.
 
40.png
stillsearching:
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic for so many souls.
Click to expand...
True that. We just got to keep on praying for them.
 
Originally Posted by stillsearching
It would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic for so many souls.
Click to expand...
True that. We just got to keep on praying for them.
Click to expand...
😉 :gopray: :gopray2: Standard appointment with the Lord at 5:00 tomorrow morning.
 
Where did all the Mormons go? Uh oh, I think they went to go have a pow-wow! lol 🙂
 
40.png
Chazemataz:
Where did all the Mormons go? Uh oh, I think they went to go have a pow-wow! lol 🙂
Click to expand...
No pow-wows for me, just been busy with summertime activities. Anyway, I’ve read the speech in question. First of all, realize that this speech was given by BY as a political address to the state legislature while he was governor and is BY’s opinion and not a revelation. BY said many things I can’t support or condone as did various leaders in our church. We don’t consider our leaders perfect and thus, as imperfect men, they make mistakes from time to time. As I read the Bible is see weaknesses and mistakes in ancient prophets and apostles also so I don’t get too hung up over it. For us, when a leader receives a revelation to be canonized it is added to the Doctrine and Covenants, which is the repository for modern day revelations from God through our prophets. If a church leader muses over certain doctrines that haven’t been revealed by the Lord or speculates or shares opinion on certain things we don’t get too hung up over it if we disagree because it’s not considered church doctrine. I know this seems like a copout but what else can I say? We don’t believe in prophetic infallibility.

For a response to the speech in question by LDS members who also happen to be black I’ll refer you to The Black Mormon website:

angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

They address the following questions at their site:
Q. I’ve heard that the Curse of Cain doctrine was never doctrine but merely folklore. Is this true?
Q. Why did the Church not ordain black men to the Priesthood?
Q. Must I believe in the Curse of Cain doctrine to be a good Member of the Church?
 
40.png
arieh0310:
Deut. 18:20-22
Jeremiah 28:8-9
Click to expand...
Those are nice scriptures but I don’t see the point. There are several examples in the Old Testament of prophets who made mistakes and were chastened by God. Take Moses and Jonah for example. Their occasional mistakes didn’t change the fact that they were true prophets of God.
 
40.png
Casen:
Those are nice scriptures but I don’t see the point. There are several examples in the Old Testament of prophets who made mistakes and were chastened by God. Take Moses and Jonah for example. Their occasional mistakes didn’t change the fact that they were true prophets of God.
Click to expand...
Moses and Jonah weren’t chastened by God because of false prophecy but because of disobenience in Jonah’s case and anger in Moses’ case. Those verses are specifically related to failed prophecy not character flaws.
 
40.png
arieh0310:
Moses and Jonah weren’t chastened by God because of false prophecy but because of disobenience in Jonah’s case and anger in Moses’ case. Those verses are specifically related to failed prophecy not character flaws.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about failed prophecy then? Because the talk that started this thread was not a prophecy by Brigham Young but rather a presentation by him as the govenor of Utah to a joint session of the state legislature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top