Of course it does. My point, if you will remember, is that Christ’s atonement provided resurrection for everybody.
1 Corinthians 15:
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
…did you bother to read that chapter? What in the world are you blathering about in regard to vicarious baptisms? If I were refering to baptism for the dead, I would have limited my reference to verse 29. However, since the subject of baptisms for the dead hasn’t even been hinted at in this thread, and since I did reference the entire chapter, I have to ask again…what in the world are you blathering on about?
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.
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.
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.
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)
No discrepancy. If Br. Lund said that his priesthood was ‘declared null and void,’ then he was incorrect, because it was not, and there is absolutely no record to show that it was. Indeed, Br. Abel’s appointment as a Seventy (which is definitely a priesthood position) was reafirmed in writing a couple of times, and there is no, and I do mean NO, record of it having been revoked, or declared ‘null and void.’ There IS evidence that he was asked to restrict its use to the black community, but that’s as far as it ever went.
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).
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.
As well, given that you have had to backtrack twice now when I have proven your claim to be incorrect, I am going to have to ask you to be very, very certain that Lund wrote what you claim he did…and to provide that quote IN context, along with the link so that we can all go look.
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.
Mind you, admitting that you were incorrect took a lot of courage; most antis would rather have their bibles burned than to admit that they were wrong about something.
Still, it should alert you to the problematic nature of the sources you are using.
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."
).The OP was about racist ideas in the LDS being divine revelation. I didn’t enter this conversation to address the OP’s point. Someone stated that the APB is a direct and logical result of the core LDS scriptures. My point was to simply correct the inaccuracy that the core LDS scriptures themselves explicitly state the APB.
