Race, God, and the LDS Church

[Returning_Home]

The BoM’s credibility or lack thereof, is not the issue here. The issue is whether the core scriptural texts of the LDS explicitly supports an African priesthood ban. I have yet to see evidence to support that contention. Whether the BoM is of God, is another issue.

The LDS clearly taught the African priesthood ban. No one is doubting that. The issue is whether that ban is explicitly justified via core LDS scriptural texts, and the answer to that, it seems, is no. I’m still waiting for someone to show me wrong, though.

Unfortunately, you’re desperately trying to split hairs here but we both know there’s no division between American and African blacks according to the church’s ban on blacks attaining the priesthood. The ban was also applied unevenly because there were a handful of black priesthood holders, but it wasn’t given blanket acceptance.

Was this ban because of the LDS canon? Not necessarily, but the BOA is the atarting point; it’s justified in other works and is therefore the same as the ‘one in purpose’ clause as applied to the Godhead in LDS theology. It appears nowhere in the four standard works.

 

[Returning_Home]

The problem here is that Jesus is telling the apostles to teach and baptize all nations; Jesus says nothing about ordaining to the priesthood all nations.

This is irrelevent because you’re referring to the Mormon jesus and since the priesthood isn’t necessary now, it is a pointless, empty work.

 

[Ahimsa]

Unfortunately, you’re desperately trying to split hairs here but we both know there’s no division between American and African blacks according to the church’s ban on blacks attaining the priesthood.

I use “African” as shorthand to include both African-Americans as well as Africans.

The ban was also applied unevenly because there were a handful of black priesthood holders, but it wasn’t given blanket acceptance.

You’re assuming that the ban was in effect during Smith’s tenure. No one has yet proven that that is the case.

Was this ban because of the LDS canon? Not necessarily, but the BOA is the atarting point; it’s justified in other works and is therefore the same as the ‘one in purpose’ clause as applied to the Godhead in LDS theology. It appears nowhere in the four standard works.

No one is arguing that the ban is not in other LDS works. My simple point is that the African priesthood ban is not in the four standard works.

 

[Ahimsa]

…you’re referring to the Mormon jesus…

Right, this is a thread about Mormon theology.

 

[Stephen168]

If you reject the idea of continuing revelation, you are perfectly in your rights in doing so. If you don’t believe that the LDS receives continuing revelation, that’s fine too. But continuing revelation is simply part of how the LDS conceptualizes its relationship to God, and its relationship to the APB.

Which means what?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Which means what?

I can’t speak for Ahimsa, but I suspect this means that either ~

• God can, and sometimes does, change His mind, OR
• Humans sometimes misunderstand God, so God corrects them (via continuing revelation) although it would appear that, at least sometimes, God allows the humans to continue in error for decades before the correction is made.

 

[Ahimsa]

I can’t speak for Ahimsa, but I suspect this means that either ~

• God can, and sometimes does, change His mind, OR
• Humans sometimes misunderstand God, so God corrects them (via continuing revelation) although it would appear that, at least sometimes, God allows the humans to continue in error for decades before the correction is made.

I would add these qualifications:
If we assume that the APB was a revelation from God:
The APB, since it was never intended to last forever, was not a case of God changing His mind, but fulfilling what was predicted.

If we don’t assume that the APB was a revelation from God:
On the issue of why didn’t God “immediately” correct a misunderstanding: A thousand years is as a day to God.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I can’t speak for Ahimsa, but I suspect this means that either ~

• God can, and sometimes does, change His mind, OR
• Humans sometimes misunderstand God, so God corrects them (via continuing revelation) although it would appear that, at least sometimes, God allows the humans to continue in error for decades before the correction is made.

if Ahimsa is really saying that, I truly feel sorry for him.

While God might change his mind about how to deal with a situation (ie. Noah and Lot), God does not change His mind as to right and wrong. The LDS leaders who allegedly spoke to God would not have gotten racism wrong for 150 years

 

[Stephen168]

Okay, the last thread on this was very amped up and uncharitable on both sides. I’ll try and give this one a shot again, but I’ll try to be both clear and more charitable about it. I ofer, right now, my sincerest apologies to any LDS I have offended because they thought I was implying that their Church is racist (which I’m not implying).

However, here is the real point I, at least, was trying to make (I speak for nobody else).

SirThomasMore provided Mormon Prophets making claims that the Mormon God taught racism. The Prophets said, several times, that racism was one of God’s teachings.

Later, other Prophets came and said that this claim, that God taught racism, was wrong. But why should we believe the later Prophets over the earlier Prophets? How do we know the later Prophets were right? Did God change his mind? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. So why are we believing one Prophet over another?

I only find it suspect that a teaching of GOD could be found to be wrong. The only conclusion I could draw is that it was not a teaching of God.

Responses?

If you reject the idea of continuing revelation, you are perfectly in your rights in doing so. If you don’t believe that the LDS receives continuing revelation, that’s fine too. But continuing revelation is simply part of how the LDS conceptualizes its relationship to God, and its relationship to the APB.

Continuing revelation, good, right; NOW, how does that answer the OP’s questions?

 

[Stephen168]

I would add these qualifications:
If we assume that the APB was a revelation from God:
The APB, since it was never intended to last forever, was not a case of God changing His mind, but fulfilling what was predicted.

If we don’t assume that the APB was a revelation from God:
On the issue of why didn’t God “immediately” correct a misunderstanding: A thousand years is as a day to God.

Which one does the Mormon Church teach?

 

[MelanieAnne]

if Ahimsa is really saying that, I truly feel sorry for him.

While God might change his mind about how to deal with a situation (ie. Noah and Lot), God does not change His mind as to right and wrong. The LDS leaders who allegedly spoke to God would not have gotten racism wrong for 150 years

I agree with you STM, but, as I said, I cannot speak for Ahimsa. And he/she has now spoken for him/her self and, as a result, I am going to the kitchen.

I know Rebecca prefers lime jello with carrots, but I really favor cherry or strawberry, in other words, something RED. I’ll mix it up, get out my hammer & let you know.

 

[Ahimsa]

Which one does the Mormon Church teach?

I believe the LDS teach the former, that APB was revelatory policy, but a policy that had a built-in time-limit.

 

[PaulDupre]

Ahimsa:

I would add these qualifications:
If we assume that the APB was a revelation from God:
The APB, since it was never intended to last forever, was not a case of God changing His mind, but fulfilling what was predicted.

No, that won’t work. What was predicted by LDS prophets was that the ban on black priests would not be lifted until after the return of Christ (the millenium). In 1978, when the ban on black priests was lifted, Christ had not yet returned. Therefore, the LDS prophets were wrong.

According to the bible, it only takes one false prophecy to make a prophet a false prophet. So the LDS prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball were false prophets.

The LDS church is apostate according to the bible.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I agree with you STM, but, as I said, I cannot speak for Ahimsa. And he/she has now spoken for him/her self and, as a result, I am going to the kitchen.

I know Rebecca prefers lime jello with carrots, but I really favor cherry or strawberry, in other words, something RED. I’ll mix it up, get out my hammer & let you know.

I’m telling you, cranberry jello, it is the best. Really you’ve got to try it, it’s the only reason we have jello in the house at all, and it’s red And carrot UGH!!! If you must have something shredded in your jello I suppose you could use apples?

 

[MelanieAnne]

i’m telling you, cranberry jello, it is the best. Really you’ve got to try it, it’s the only reason we have jello in the house at all, and it’s red and carrot ugh!!! If you must have something shredded in your jello i suppose you could use apples?

okee dokee!

 

[aquabatix]

The difficult part about discussing this is that the APB was one ove the very very few DOCTRINEs of the LDS that was taught for a very long time yet was never placed in their scriptures. Why? Who knows? Perhaps it was thought to be something that was a part of the culture and would not change. They didn’t see the civil rights movement coming. But whatever it was, it was a strongly taught doctrine that took a “revelation” to reverse. Not common sense, reason, love or compassion, but a “knock it off” from god as was described earlier. So was it a policy? Yes. Was it a doctrine? Yes. Did they put it illicitly in D&C? No, but the curses and bans of people with dark skin were good enough.

 

[Stephen168]

I believe the LDS teach the former, that APB was revelatory policy, but a policy that had a built-in time-limit.

Do you have any quotes from Mormon leaders before 1960 that would tell us what the time limit was? Are there any quotes from Mormon leaders as to why God didn’t want people of African decent to have the priesthood from 1844 to 1978?

 

[Ahimsa]

No, that won’t work. What was predicted by LDS prophets was that the ban on black priests would not be lifted until after the return of Christ (the millenium). In 1978, when the ban on black priests was lifted, Christ had not yet returned. Therefore, the LDS prophets were wrong.

Continuing revelation, dude, continuing revelation.

But seriously, I’m not so sure if the “time limit” was necessarily part of the “prophecy”. In any event, even if it were, continuing revelation would still be in effect.

I remember Jesus saying something about people living in his time not dying before the Second Coming (Matthew 24:1-34, Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-32). So, I’m not so sure if every single prediction by a prophet need come to pass.

 

[Ahimsa]

Do you have any quotes from Mormon leaders before 1960 that would tell us what the time limit was? Are there any quotes from Mormon leaders as to why God didn’t want people of African decent to have the priesthood from 1844 to 1978?

Some leaders mentioned something about the millennium.

A common reason given for the APB was the curse of Cain.

 

[Stephen168]

Some leaders mentioned something about the millennium.

So, until the ban was lifted, the Mormon leaders had said it would last until the millennium. Did they mean the second coming of Christ or the year 2001?

A common reason given for the APB was the curse of Cain.

How do Mormon leaders explain the curse of Cain starting in the 19th century with Brigham Young?