Race, God, and the LDS Church

[LongJourney]

In Joseph Smith was much less racist than later leaders. You won’t find many racist comments from him, unless you believe he wrote the BoM.

You might be careful when discussing Elijah Abel around Diana. She might have access to other information about him. I wouldn’t be surprised if she is the widow of one of his descendants.

Signature Books is thought by many TBM’s to be anti-Mormon. They published Southerton’s book.

 

[dianaiad]

First of all, you’re trying to hide behind the Christian interpretation of this while holding the Mormon definition close to your heart. Second, since the church maintains that the Bible is still missing those ,many ‘plain and precious things,’ you have no idea as to whether this is correct.

I am? News to me. Thank you for reading my mind and telling me what I was truly thinking.

So…BECAUSE I referenced 1 Cor.15, with specific information about how Christ’s atonement provided universal resurrection, what I REALLY meant was to talk about proxy baptisms (as complete a non sequitur to this thread as if I had suddenly started discussing the care and feeding of chokecherry bushes) and that even though the 'Mormon meaning" of those verses is very literal (universal physical resurrection means universal physical resurrection–a view shared by, I understand, most Christian groups) that somehow: a: the “Mormon meaning” is different from the “Christian” one, B; you know what it is, and C; I was speaking in code?

What?

With all due respect, RH, your GPS unit is running off the wrong satelite.

The point here is that the church broke its own rules because Brigham Young made it clear that blacks weren’t to possess the priesthood until after the Second Coming.

No, sir, the point here is that you keep making claims you can’t support, prividing references that don’t say what you insist they do, and then changing the point from post to post. Did the church rules change from JS to BY? Yep, they did.

However, YOUR claim was that it was JS who started the whole thing…then when you couldn’t provide any quotes from him, you claimed that he MUST have felt that way, because BY had to have followed his lead, and now you are claiming that the church changed policies. First you claimed that Elijah somehow fooled people and ‘passed’ (people who are 1/8 black generally can…shoot, my own children are at least 1/4 black, and though they don’t care one way or the other, most people don’t look at them and see ‘black’) and THAT’S why he got the priesthood, and then you claim that his priesthood was made ‘null and void’ (it never was, though he certainly was discriminated against).

So now you are falling back on "the church changed policies.’
Well, yes. it did; quite obviously. But then, I’ve never said otherwise.

The Second Coming, in Mormon theology, is followed by the first resurrection. During the Millennium, there are two great works for the church: temple work and missionary work (Gospel Principles, p 283, 1996 edition). The temple work, primarily baptism of the dead, is so that the deceased can have the choice to become Mormons and accept the gospel of Joseph Smith. Without it, they cannot progress, attain the priesthood, and achive exalted godhood. Since the priesthood is necessary for all ‘worthy’ men, the clear implication is that this can also be achieved in the afterlife, and thus what the temple work is supposed to accomplish through baptisms for the dead.

So far, so good, but then you fly off on a tangent…

to be continued…

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

That all said, we can now tie this together with the words of Brigham Young: “Cain slew his brother…and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin…How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable (sic) position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive the blessings in like proportion.” (JOD Vol 7, pp 290-91)

Here’s more proof: “When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity…he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God.” (JOD Vol 2, p 143)

First, you are quoting the JOD as if it were a scriptural prooftext. You know better than that. However, think about this: Christ Himself restricted the gospel first to the Jews. The Jews were/are God’s chosen people–and Christ came first to them. The idea was that only after the Jews had the priviledge and chance to hear of Christ could the gentiles be given the opportunity.

Yet the gentiles WERE given that opportunity, and countless generations of Jews have been born since that time. Were the gentiles supposed to wait for the gospel until after every single Jew to ever BE born WAS born? Obviously not, since here we all are, Christians, knowing of Him–and we are not Jews.

Therefore the meaning isn’t that all of the ‘children of Abel’ were to be born and personally be given the priesthood. It could very well mean simply that the opportunity is there for every son of Abel who would be born.

That’s one idea…that as of now, all the peoples of the world have access to the restored gospel, so that condition has been met.

Or…we could have been going on a mistaken church policy for 138 years, and God, through a prophet, having figured out that we weren’t going to fix it our selves, told us to cut it out and straighten up.

Or…we as a people WERE becoming uncomfortable with this policy and were praying really hard (well, I was, as was everyone I knew) to God to give us an answer to it, and God decided that we were ready for it, fixed it.

Or…some other reason. What I DO know is that, like every other group of people in America, we struggled with racism, and unlike the vast majority of other groups, it didn’t require riots, demonstrations or violence to fix it. One announcement on one sunny summer morning and it was done. God spoke to a prophet, the prophet spoke to us…and that was that.

You guys are still having problems with this issue, and we…aren’t. That’s pretty simple.

to be continued…

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

Like I said, I now agree with you; it doesn’t seem possible for Joseph Smith to have mistakenly ordained Elijah Abel, allowed him to attain the position of a seventy, and for the church then take away his priesthood, while still permitting the ordination of his son and grandson (Enoch and Elijah respectively).

RH, perhaps (she is trying to say very gently) it would be a good idea to ASK THE MORMON before you go to the anti-Mormon sites. You know, do some original research of your own and stop believing the CARM version of Mormonism?

That wouldn’t make any sense. No, the fact that Lund and fellow apologist Arthur M. Richardson in That Ye May Not Be Deceived cite either the church historian’s office or simply ‘church library,’ indicates that they were retelling a lie they had been told in order to make some sense of the fact that blacks weren’t permitted the priesthood at that time, which predates the 1978 ‘revelation.’ They were revising church history to give the impression of cohesion. Did they know the truth? Hard to say but I’ll see if I can’t find that answer.

That’s a start. BYU has a great data base of original documents, and most of it is online and free to use. Just–stay away from the anti-sites. Or at least, double check the sources that you get FROM those sites. As you can see, they tend not to be very reliable. As in…downright wrong, out of context, incorrect, misleading, non-existant…like that.

I’m quite certain that you would be just as irritated with me if I decided to start criticizing Catholicism because of the stuff I found in Jack Chick and CARM sites, right? How accurate are those people about Catholicism and Catholic history?

I didn’t backtrack on anything. I made my point, you made yours, and on further research, found that I was wrong and you were right. You’re a poor winner, even in this instance.

That is…hmn. Well, conceding the point is very gracious of you; frankly, I don’t see that a lot. As to your accusation that I am a “poor winner…” I didn’t win anything. You did. You won something important; at least I hope you did. I hope you won an important insight into religious criticism: that it is far better to understand and criticise reality than it is to go after strawmen, even strawmen that you did not construct. I don’t think that I have, in this conversation, accused YOU of being hateful or of being an ‘anti’ (and believe me, when I call someone an anti, it’s a deliberate and calculated judgment of extreme fault on their part; mere critics don’t qualify). I have simply asked you to get your information from better sites. It’s obvious that your sources are suspect, RH. It’s not your fault that your sources are screwy. The fact that you are willing to concede that they ARE screwy shows that one. Just…use better sources from now on.

The source I’m using, The Church and the Negro, was written to defend the church’s position for not giving blacks the priesthood. It was not, in any way, 'anti-Mormon."

No, but it is also, not in any way, considered scripture nor official Church policy nor anything else. It is John Lund’s opinion. He’s quite free to hold one, y’know…and if we, as Mormons, allow our prophets and apostles to have opinions that might not be full on doctrine, how much more would that apply to men like John L. Lund? He absolutely has his free agency to say anything he wishes, just as Catholics allow men like Fr. Gerhard Wagner, who stated that Hurricane Katrina was sent in punishment for the sins of New Orleans and that Harry Potter is satanism, to become Bishops. Catholics don’t have to go along with his opinions on everything just because he is a priest, and Mormons don’t have to go along with Lund just because he was published.

By the way, I don’t have a copy of that book myself, so I can’t really look up the quotes from it. Do you have an actual copy, or are you getting the quotes from an anti-site? If it is the latter, please remember just how accurate your sources from there have been so far.

 

[dianaiad]

You’re putting words in my mouth; I never claimed that there were ‘many’ of anything.

I had more to my response but thanks to Internet Explorer, I lost it so in disgust, I retire to bed.

Y’know, you’re quite right. You did NOT say ‘many quotes.’ You simply asked why, if Joseph Smith said that negros didn’t have the right to the priesthood, why he ordained Elijah.

 

[dianaiad]

In Joseph Smith was much less racist than later leaders. You won’t find many racist comments from him, unless you believe he wrote the BoM.

You might be careful when discussing Elijah Abel around Diana. She might have access to other information about him. I wouldn’t be surprised if she is the widow of one of his descendants.

Signature Books is thought by many TBM’s to be anti-Mormon. They published Southerton’s book.

Nice thought, and I wouldn’t mind a bit, but Jim (my husband) was a convert.

As to Signature Books, they publish what they think will sell, like every other publisher in the world.

 

[LongJourney]

Nice thought, and I wouldn’t mind a bit, but Jim (my husband) was a convert.

Thank you for clarifying that. You are so passionate about E. A., that I just wondered.

 

[NewSeeker]

This issue is very simple. The APB was not of God. LDS prophets, speaking as prophets over the pulpit, said that it was. The teaching that the APB was of God was not a policy or opinion, but a doctrinal statement. Prophets aren’t allowed to issue false doctrinal statements. Retroactively calling those statements “opinion” doesn’t excuse them. The prophets said their teachings about the APB were doctrinal. Presenting them as truth over the pulpit in conference indicates they weren’t offering opinions. They were teaching doctrine. True prophets don’t teach false doctrine. Any LDS prophet who taught the APB was of God taught false doctrine. False prophets teach false doctrine.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you for clarifying that. You are so passionate about E. A., that I just wondered.

I am 'passionate" whenever my faith is attacked using erroneous information. It is not limited to Elijah Abel.

 

[dianaiad]

This issue is very simple. The APB was not of God. LDS prophets, speaking as prophets over the pulpit, said that it was.

OK, begging a couple of questions here. YOU do not get to define when prophets are ‘speaking as prophets,’ for Mormons any more than I get to define which Papal Bull is considered to be infallible. If I did, trust me, I have a great deal more ammunition against official Catholic racism than you do against the LDS version. We restricted blacks of African descent from holding the priesthood. You guys did that for a lot longer than we did, (and are still doing that, judging from the proportion of black priests to white ones vs. the proportion of black Catholics to white ones) AND you guys are the ones who institutionalized black slavery in the first place.

Since the premise is faulty, any conclusions you reach are also faulty.

The teaching that the APB was of God was not a policy or opinion, but a doctrinal statement. Prophets aren’t allowed to issue false doctrinal statements. Retroactively calling those statements “opinion” doesn’t excuse them. The prophets said their teachings about the APB were doctrinal. Presenting them as truth over the pulpit in conference indicates they weren’t offering opinions. They were teaching doctrine. True prophets don’t teach false doctrine. Any LDS prophet who taught the APB was of God taught false doctrine. False prophets teach false doctrine.

 

[NewSeeker]

LDS prophets are held to a higher standard than popes. Prophets speak face to face with God. They’re not allowed to offer opinions about doctrine. As regards the APB, LDS prophets taught false doctrine.

 

[dianaiad]

LDS prophets are held to a higher standard than popes. Prophets speak face to face with God. They’re not allowed to offer opinions about doctrine. As regards the APB, LDS prophets taught false doctrine.

Who said?

As soon as Catholicism claimed that there was ever a time when Popes became ‘infallible,’ they must be held to the same standard as LDS prophets, and LDS prophets, being men, must be given the same right to be men as Popes are.

Haven’t you noticed that the bible goes to rather great lengths to portray all the prophets as men, with faults?

We claim that prophets speak as prophets when a: they claim to do so, and b: their words are canonized. Those things which are not in scripture may or may not be Truth, but we know that if it made the canon, it is.

…and that is no different from any other prophet from biblical times. Catholics get some of their doctrine from Holy Tradition–which is NOT scripture, but is pretty much equal to it, right?

Well, we get our doctrine strictly from scripture. Our canon isn’t closed, as yours is, so we can point to scripture and say 'if its there, its doctrine, and if it isn’t there, YOU do not claim that it must be."

It’s rather ironic, actually; I can point to Papal declarations that made some very nasty racist policies and outright orders to massacre church policy, the disobedience of which was often punishable by excommunication, torture and death, but y’all will say that ‘it wasn’t doctrine’ and therefore the church was innocent of the acts. Why? Because nothing that isn’t in the bible is ‘doctrine,’ according to you. You get to ignore ‘holy tradition’ in that case, I notice.

However, when Mormons claim the same exact thing, that if its not in the scriptures, it’s not doctrine, then you dismiss it saying that every word out of a Prophet’s mouth is him 'speaking as a prophet."

The problem is this incredible double standard you are pulling. I can understand it, because if you use the same standard for yourselves as you use for us, you lose this debate no matter which standard you use.

If you use the 'If it’s not in the scriptures, it’s not doctrine" standard that you hold for yourselves, then you must stop insisting that every word out of the mouth of every LDS church leader imposes doctrine upon the church, so that you can criticise everything said as if it were official doctrine.

If, on the other hand, you use the standard you want to impose upon US, that is…doctrine is set by the leaders of the church and the policies announced from the highest level, then you have to admit that racism in some of its nastiest forms has been doctrine for Catholicism for a very, very long time…and if it isn’t any more, then it’s still a practical result of church policy.

Either way, you have to stop attacking the LDS church for a racist policy that was completely ended over thirty years ago, because your arguments regarding a racist policy in the CoJCoLDS somehow proving that it is false also proves Catholicism false–and for precisely the same reasons–if you use the same standard for both beliefs.

Worse, because unlike Catholicism, there is absolutely no racism in the CoJCoLDS at the moment. No racist policies, no segregation, no separate congregations, no different treatment…nothing. The same cannot be said for Catholicism.

 

[NewSeeker]

So knock it off.

Quit sidestepping the issue. Brigham Young (among other LDS prophets) taught false doctrine.

 

[LongJourney]

Worse, because unlike Catholicism, there is absolutely no racism in the CoJCoLDS at the moment. No racist policies, no segregation, no separate congregations, no different treatment…nothing. The same cannot be said for Catholicism.

I don’t know where you get information that Catholics segregate. Catholicism appreciates cultural diversity, and does not pressure people to give up those differences. Separate parishes are based on language differences, because people would rather hear the Mass in the language with which they are the most comfortable. As for Latin, well-- some people are more comfortable with Latin. Especially since French, Spanish, and Italian are so closely related to it.

Mormonism is uncomfortable with cultural diversity.

 

[dianaiad]

Quit sidestepping the issue. Brigham Young (among other LDS prophets) taught false doctrine.

Wow, you are fast; the above qoute ‘so knock it off,’ I went back and edited out of my response less than a minute after I hit the ‘send’ button, because I thought it was out of line.

Ah, well.

Never mind…I didn’t side step a thing. I called your premise into question. If your premise is that BY taught false doctrine as YOU think doctrine should be, as a Catholic, then you are correct. They did not teach ‘true’ doctrine as you understand it.

However, I can claim that the Popes all taught false doctrine, too, and be just as justified. They all have, according to what I believe ‘true’ doctrine is.

However, your claim is that you get to decide FOR US what LDS doctrine is, and you use a set of logical steps that begin from a false premise, and that is that everything that a church leader says is doctrine that must be seen as such by the church body. Sorry, but no.

In one way, Mormons are the ultimate ‘sola scripturians.’ It’s just that our canon is still open, so that it IS possible that a prophet can add to scripture and thus declare doctrine. Since he CAN, then it follows that if he does NOT, then what he has said isn’t necessarily doctrine.

On the other hand, Catholics have a closed canon; no more scripture. Yet you do have a provision whereby a Pope can be infallible–that is, there are times when something that he says MUST be taken as absolute Truth, certainly equal to scripture in authority; assured that when he says this infallible thing, that God meant it. Infallible.

Given this, then we have a problem; it seems to me that while I might have a case for figuring that the Popes can and do declare doctrine without their words being put into actual scripture–since of course you have this closed canon BUT a doctrine of Papal infallibility, YOU can’t make the same claim for us, because a prophet CAN write scripture when required, for us.

The upshot is this: you are certainly entitled to claim that the LDS prophets teach false doctrine; after all, if you thought they taught ‘true’ doctrine, I’m sure you would instantly contact an LDS missionary and set a baptism date.

You are NOT entitled to define what WE think ‘true doctrine’ is. If you can tell me that Papal infallibility does NOT mean that Papal declarations of racist policies make racism church policy/doctrine, then don’t you think you should listen when a Mormon tells you that not every word coming out of the mouth of a church leader is official (or even unofficial) church doctrine?

 

[NewSeeker]

I’m very entitled to discuss how Mormon definitions about what a prophet is have changed, very conveniently. I have inside information as a former lifelong member who still attends church with his very LDS wife and her family. But no matter. The point is that BY either knew he was teaching false doctrine or he didn’t know, when he certainly was. If the former, he’s a liar. If the latter, then he was unable to distinguish between doctrine and opinion. Which was it? Option 1 or Option 2? Either impugns his prophetic credentials.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know where you get information that Catholics segregate. Catholicism appreciates cultural diversity, and does not pressure people to give up those differences. Separate parishes are based on language differences, because people would rather hear the Mass in the language with which they are the most comfortable. As for Latin, well-- some people are more comfortable with Latin. Especially since French, Spanish, and Italian are so closely related to it.

Mormonism is uncomfortable with cultural diversity.

Sorry, but you guys still have black only congregations. (example, the Imani Temple African American Catholic Congregation, founded by Fr…now Archbishop…Stallings in Washington DC) Unless you want to call “Ebonics” separating congregations by languages, then you have a problem. By the way, we too have separate Spanish Speaking congregations, though those who attend there can choose which congregation (the English speaking one or or the Spanish only one) they want to attend.

As for diversity?

This is the first time I’ve EVER heard that segregation = diversity. Diversity means that you welcome everybody in, not that you separate everybody out.

By the way, according to the Chicagoans, at least, the Catholic church is not exactly a proponent of diversity. Pascale Poupnneau, in a VERY pro-Catholic peaon to Catholicism in Chicago, said this: “To combat this problem,[the influx of African American parishioners into predominantly white neighborhoods] the Archdiocese used their parochial schools as a tool to recruit Black parishioners (Lehmann 5). Ironically, once they joined church, they would have to check their cultural identity at the door and adapt the cultural identity of that parish, whether, Irish, Polish or even Latino. They often felt like the invisible minority (Wycliff 1).”

He went on to say this:

" In a 12 year-old national poll, over 89% of the Black Catholics who responded, felt that racism is alive and well in the Catholic Church (Lehmann 8). The Church has often been accused of being almost exclusively Eurocentric. “It prays White, worships White, and thinks preeminently White” says Reverend Lawrence E. Lucas, of New York (Lehmann 1). “Roman Catholicism is so European and White orientated that it can’t help but fail the spiritual, cultural and social needs of its minorities Black in particular” (Lehmann 1)"

He went on to praise the final solution to the above problems: not to make their ‘white’ congregations more accepting of black culture and needs, but to convert St. Ailbe’s into a black only congregation, joining the other black only congregations that are in and around Chicago. He, like you, thought it was a great idea.

What it is, is segregation pure and simple.

As for Mormons ‘not liking diversity,’ I submit that you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[Ahimsa]

Sorry, but you guys still have black only congregations. (example, the Imani Temple African American Catholic Congregation, founded by Fr…now Archbishop…Stallings in Washington DC)…

Actually, Stallings was excommunicated, back in the '90s, I believe; he set up his own separate Catholic tradition, afterwards, with him as bishop, naturally.

There are predominantly African-American Catholic parishes, of course, but not because people of one or another racial group are forcefully excluded from attending.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m very entitled to discuss how Mormon definitions about what a prophet is have changed, very conveniently.

Moving the goalposts again? What I said was that you are not entitled to define FOR US what we believe doctrine to be. As to what a “prophet” is, that definition remains the same as it has always been.

As for being 'entitled to discuss" something, true. You are entitled to say anything you like because you have the right of free speech. However, you are not entitled to have what you say be definitive.

I have inside information as a former lifelong member who still attends church with his very LDS wife and her family.

“former” puts him out of the running, sir. Just as I would not use a ‘former’ Catholic as any sort of primary source for Catholic doctrine or thought, a ‘former’ Mormon cannot be used as a primary source for LDS thought. The bias is too obvious, and too strong.

But no matter. The point is that BY either knew he was teaching false doctrine or he didn’t know, when he certainly was. If the former, he’s a liar. If the latter, then he was unable to distinguish between doctrine and opinion. Which was it? Option 1 or Option 2? Either impugns his prophetic credentials.

I see. Then of course Moses was a false prophet when he declared that bats were birds and that rabbits chewed their cuds, and other prophets became false as soon as they spoke of 'four corners of the earth" (the world is flat…) and other false information?

According to your logic, either Moses really knew that bats were not birds and therefore he was a liar, or he DIDN’T know that bats were not birds, which made in unable to distinguish between doctrine and opinion. Which was it? Option 1 or Option 2? Ether impugns his prophetic credentials.

Unless, of course, it is allowable that prophets are men who can sometimes be mistaken, and therefore it’s important that only those things that make it into scripture be taken as true prophetic utterances, allowing for incorrect opinion at other times. You know, just like a Pope is infallible only when he is discussing ‘matters of faith and morals’ and even then only when he declares that he is speaking ex cathedra. At other times he is allowed to be mistaken.

Tell me…if there ARE times when a Pope is infallible, then, when he says something at other times that is in error, what about your options then? Seems to me that they would apply equally.

Sauce, goose, gandar, in other words,

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, Stallings was excommunicated, back in the '90s, I believe; he set up his own separate Catholic tradition, afterwords, with him as bishop, naturally.

There are predominantly African-American Catholic parishes, of course, but not because people of one or another racial group are forcefully excluded from attending.

I wasn’t aware of the excommunication. Thank you! Indeed, after further research, I see that he’s quite…an unusual person indeed.

However, segregation by practicality is the same thing as ‘force.’ That is, what is the difference in real terms between a priest telling you at the door that you aren’t allowed in, and that same priest saying that you might be more comfortable at this meeting over there?

When one congregation has an official policy banning a certain type of music, but the one a mile over is allowed that type, so that a certain group of people would feel ‘more comfortable’ in one congregation than the other, how is that NOT segregation?

How is an emphasis on ‘Afro-centric’ themes, practices and music to the exclusion of all other cultural influences NOT segregation, any more than banning such things in a ‘white’ congregation is the same thing?

There are more ways to force issues than passing laws and aiming guns at people. Peer pressure and cultural expectations are far more effective.