Where can I find the Mormon teaching on Africans being fallen Angels?

[Cormaria]

Where can I find the Mormon teaching on Africans being fallen Angels? and the

 

[PaulDupre]

Not fallen angels. The LDS believe that before we were born onto the earth, we were born as offspring of the heavenly father and his wives and grew up in a “pre-existence” with all the other “spirit children”. While we were there, we understood that in order to become gods, we must be sent to an earth to get physical bodies, but that we would sin and need a redeemer. Two of the spirit children, Jehovah and Lucifer, proposed plans for our salvation. Lucifer offered to force us to obey the heavenly father so that all would be saved, but Jehovah (who would be born as Jesus) proposed a plan whereby we would have the freedom to choose to obey or not. Jehovah’s plan was accepted and he was chosen to be the savior, whereupon Lucifer rebelled and became Satan.

With that in mind, Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth President of the LDS church wrote:

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).

So, according to Mormonism, people are born black because they sided with Satan in the war in heaven. In Mormonism, dark skin has always been seen as a curse…

 

[PaulDupre]

Brigham Young second President and Prophet:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses, 7:290)

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 (Journal of Discourses, 10:110)

Brigham Young stated that his sermons are Scripture:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture (Journal of Discourses, 13:95).

More from John Taylor, third LDS President and Prophet:

after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God. . . . (Journal of Discourses, 23:304).

When he [Satan] destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian worlds, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth (Journal of Discourses,23:336)

after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God. . . . (Journal of Discourses, 23:304).

Wilford Woodruff, who became the fourth President and Prophet of the LDS Church:

What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. To day there are millions of the descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rest upon them (Millennial Star, 51:339).

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President and Prophet.

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was place upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning… we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our Negro brethren, for they are our brethren–children of God—notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness (The Way to Perfection, 101-02)

and it goes on and on…

 

[PaulDupre]

LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson:

President Woodruff added, 'The Lord said, ‘I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon every face of every Negro, upon the face of the earth. And it is the decree of God that [the] mark should remain upon the seed of Cain, until the seed of Able shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the blood of Cain in him cannot receive the Priesthood’

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man or was it God?. . . The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse–as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. . . . And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accursed of having such a prejudice. . . .

If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would be cursed as to the Priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the Priesthood? If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. . . . There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church! . . . Now we are generous with the Negro.

We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that that they have all the advantages as they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change it?"

• (Race Problems-- As They Affect the Church, address given by Mark E. Peterson at BYU)

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty… The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them. Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned. . . . (Mormon Doctrine, 477, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed.).

Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through that lineage (Mormon Doctrine,109; 1966 org. ed.).

Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Mormon Doctrine., 114; current ed.)

 

[ParkerD]

Where can I find the Mormon teaching on Africans being fallen Angels? and the

Cormaria,
Paul has given you some quotes, but please be aware that in 1978 and thereafter, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said that anything that had been said about Blacks by any LDS leader including him before 1978, should not be regarded as true and should be replaced with new understanding that had come by revelation through a living prophet. So since he said that and was very adamant about that, I hope you understand that the idea that it is a “Mormon teaching” is completely wrong. It is an opinion formerly given as an opinion by some then-prominent LDS leaders, who have since been proven completely wrong.

That is not a current “Mormon teaching” at all, nor was it ever correct doctrine.

Peace to you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Cormaria,
Paul has given you some quotes, but please be aware that in 1978 and thereafter, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said that anything that had been said about Blacks by any LDS leader including him before 1978, should not be regarded as true and should be replaced with new understanding that had come by revelation through a living prophet. So since he said that and was very adamant about that, I hope you understand that the idea that it is a “Mormon teaching” is completely wrong. It is an opinion formerly given as an opinion by some then-prominent LDS leaders, who have since been proven completely wrong.

That is not a current “Mormon teaching” at all, nor was it ever correct doctrine.

Peace to you.

ParkerD:

I will ask you the same question, I asked on another thread this morning: How did you obtain the authority to reject the beliefs of your early Prophets and Apostles?

If the teachings of early Prophets are wrong, then doesn’t that make them false Prophets?

Anna

 

[PaulDupre]

ParkerD:

I will ask you the same question, I asked on another thread this morning: How did you obtain the authority to reject the beliefs of your early Prophets and Apostles?

If the teachings of early Prophets are wrong, then doesn’t that make them false Prophets?

Anna

And if the teachings of their former prophets were so wrong for 150 years, what kind of confidence can they have in their current prophets?

It is such an obvious sham, I am embarrassed for those who try to defend it.

Paul

 

[Jay53]

Not fallen angels. The LDS believe that before we were born onto the earth, we were born as offspring of the heavenly father and his wives and grew up in a “pre-existence” with all the other “spirit children”. While we were there, we understood that in order to become gods, we must be sent to an earth to get physical bodies, but that we would sin and need a redeemer. Two of the spirit children, Jehovah and Lucifer, proposed plans for our salvation. Lucifer offered to force us to obey the heavenly father so that all would be saved, but Jehovah (who would be born as Jesus) proposed a plan whereby we would have the freedom to choose to obey or not. Jehovah’s plan was accepted and he was chosen to be the savior, whereupon Lucifer rebelled and became Satan.

With that in mind, Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth President of the LDS church wrote:

So, according to Mormonism, people are born black because they sided with Satan in the war in heaven. In Mormonism, dark skin has always been seen as a curse…

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD:

I will ask you the same question, I asked on another thread this morning: How did you obtain the authority to reject the beliefs of your early Prophets and Apostles?

If the teachings of early Prophets are wrong, then doesn’t that make them false Prophets?

Anna

Anna,
I have responded to your first question on the other thread.

As to the specific issue here, I think God allows even prophets and apostles to have their own views until He sees that the time and circumstances are right to reveal the correct doctrinal position when something has been presented that was an opinion. People have opinions, and express them in books, in talks, or in conversation. Prophets and apostles are people, meaning they are not perfect and God provides guidance through them as the need is there for specific, guiding revelation that people will be blessed for following, but they can also be “just people” when it comes to every subject under the sun.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
I have responded to your first question on the other thread.

As to the specific issue here, I think God allows even prophets and apostles to have their own views until He sees that the time and circumstances are right to reveal the correct doctrinal position when something has been presented that was an opinion.

People have opinions, and express them in books, in talks, or in conversation. Prophets and apostles are people, meaning they are not perfect and God provides guidance through them as the need is there for specific, guiding revelation that people will be blessed for following, but they can also be “just people” when it comes to every subject under the sun.

Parker:

I did find your response on the Thread, entitled: LDS & Catholic Comparison
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=392048

The following is a quote of your response and my answer:

Anna,
I had tried to post an answer to your question earlier today at my dad’s house, but I see it didn’t take, so I’ll answer again now.

I don’t need “authority to reject the beliefs of (19th Century LDS) prophets and apostles”.

Mormons aren’t asked that kind of a question, ever. We are asked if we sustain the current president of the LDS church as prophet, seer, and revelator, with all the keys of the priesthood, and sustain the current apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators also.

We aren’t asked if we believe or sustain every teaching or quote by every former president of the church or former apostle. If I were to be asked that question in terms of “worthiness”, I would respond, “Show me the specific quote or teaching you are asking about, and show me what Thomas S Monson has said or written about that subject, and I’ll be able to answer your question.”

I do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and fulfilled the purposes God had for him on the earth.

I also believe Brigham Young had important purposes he was suited to fulfill, and provided prophetic leadership in fulfilling the purposes God intended with his calling as prophet. Joseph Smith gave the doctrinal foundation for the latter-day church. Brigham Young didn’t have that role–his major role was to guide the LDS members in their migration and colonization in the western United States.

ParkerD:

You are saying the teachings of the current Mormon Prophet (seer, and revelator, with all the keys of the priesthood,) are what you follow; and if I understood you correctly, you accept the current apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

It is very clear that the current Mormon Prophet, can override, or disagree with, or even deny, the truth of a revelation from an earlier Prophet. So, I do not understand how you can call the LDS Presidents “Prophets.”

The Bible is very clear about the definition of a true Prophet. There is no margin of error. This is clearly demonstrated in Deuteronomy. (Let me say, up front, that I am not advocating the execution of LDS Prophets.)

Deuteronomy Chapter 18:

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’

21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’

— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13 (ESV):

1"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams.

For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him.

5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Parker: You seem very devoted to your church and your faith; and you spend a great deal of time answering our questions. I appreciate that. I feel bad that, even though visiting your dad, you were trying to answer my post. Really, Parker, it’s O.K. to take a break.

I guess I just do not understand your devotion to a religion that changes according to the Prophet in power. It’s not just the words of Brigham Young that are disturbing, there is also the issue of a number of failed prophecies proclaimed by Joseph Smith.

Surely, you must wonder how all the inconsistencies realistically fit together.

Anna

P.S. Parker: It’s the weekend. Don’t worry about responding today.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker:

I did find your response on the Thread, entitled: LDS & Catholic Comparison
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=392048

The following is a quote of your response and my answer:

ParkerD:

You are saying the teachings of the current Mormon Prophet (seer, and revelator, with all the keys of the priesthood,) are what you follow; and if I understood you correctly, you accept the current apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

It is very clear that the current Mormon Prophet, can override, or disagree with, or even deny, the truth of a revelation from an earlier Prophet. So, I do not understand how you can call the LDS Presidents “Prophets.”

The Bible is very clear about the definition of a true Prophet. There is no margin of error. This is clearly demonstrated in Deuteronomy. (Let me say, up front, that I am not advocating the execution of LDS Prophets.)

Deuteronomy Chapter 18:

Deuteronomy Chapter 13 (ESV):

Parker: You seem very devoted to your church and your faith; and you spend a great deal of time answering our questions. I appreciate that. I feel bad that, even though visiting your dad, you were trying to answer my post. Really, Parker, it’s O.K. to take a break.

I guess I just do not understand your devotion to a religion that changes according to the Prophet in power. It’s not just the words of Brigham Young that are disturbing, there is also the issue of a number of failed prophecies proclaimed by Joseph Smith.

Surely, you must wonder how all the inconsistencies realistically fit together.

Anna

P.S. Parker: It’s the weekend. Don’t worry about responding today.

Anna,
When Moses spoke about water coming out of the rock, but did not acknowledge that the Lord was doing that for the children of Israel, God didn’t say Moses would die, but He did say Joshua would be the new prophet when the time came for the children of Israel to cross the River Jordan into the “promised land.” Moses made a mistake, and it was OK. It actually turned out to be a good thing for the purposes of the Lord in that Joshua needed to be able to be acknowledged as their leader in a way they would recognize when the time came.

You know, I presume, that Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18 is talking about Jesus Christ. The other verses are talking about other teachers and leaders who because they did not have the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, rejected Jesus Christ and His message or led the Israelites to do less than follow the true God of Israel.

Also, chapter 13 is talking about the children of Israel as they related to the people who lived nearby, and as they might be inclined to “go after other gods.” It teaches a very important principle, that even if a “sign or a wonder come to pass” they shouldn’t believe the supposed “prophet” if that teacher was teaching about worshiping some “other god.” It says they could be tested by God through a “sign or a wonder” that appeared wonderful but was coming from the wrong source.

I am 100% knowledgeable that I know the influence of the Holy Spirit when He guides my life and my understanding. I am 100% comfortable that I love the Lord my God “with all my heart and with all my soul.” Those are not issues for me at all. I understand the Bible, and am not going after “other gods”, especially not gods of “wood and stone” or gods with no eyes or no hearing or no speaking. I know Whom I worship, and how He communicates with His children. It is not a mystery to me at all.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

When Moses spoke about water coming out of the rock, but did not acknowledge that the Lord was doing that for the children of Israel, God didn’t say Moses would die, but He did say Joshua would be the new prophet when the time came for the children of Israel to cross the River Jordan into the “promised land.”

Parker,

You are avoiding the issue of the test of a true Prophet. Nothing you have said justifies a Prophet giving a false revelation, such as Brigham Young proclaiming that God revealed to him that “Adam is god.”

However, I would suggest that Deuteronomy could apply to Brigham Young, since he lead his congregation to go after another god—Adam.

OP: Sorry to take such a detour from the topic. Though my detour does deal with the early Mormon Prophets, who are, evidently, allowed to make mistakes in their prophecies–such as those regarding the Africans.

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

Numbers 20:2-12 does not say that Moses could not bring the children of Israel into the promised land, because he did not acknowledge that it was the Lord who caused the water to come from the rock.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Anna,
I have responded to your first question on the other thread.

As to the specific issue here, I think God allows even prophets and apostles to have their own views until He sees that the time and circumstances are right to reveal the correct doctrinal position when something has been presented that was an opinion. People have opinions, and express them in books, in talks, or in conversation. Prophets and apostles are people, meaning they are not perfect and God provides guidance through them as the need is there for specific, guiding revelation that people will be blessed for following, but they can also be “just people” when it comes to every subject under the sun.

So what was up with the people of the LDS church that they couldn’t be corrected on false opinion until 1978. ?? You “know” that if the LDS ordained black men in Missouri in 1838 or so they would have been killed, what about ordaining a black man in 1930 or 1950 or 1970? There were many black men “ordained” in various denominations in those years. What was lacking in the LDS membership that they couldn’t handle a correction until 1978???

1978 is stunning to me!!! Years after Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, just flipping amazing (in an awful way) 1978 OMG.

 

[ParkerD]

So what was up with the people of the LDS church that they couldn’t be corrected on false opinion until 1978. ?? You “know” that if the LDS ordained black men in Missouri in 1838 or so they would have been killed, what about ordaining a black man in 1930 or 1950 or 1970? There were many black men “ordained” in various denominations in those years. What was lacking in the LDS membership that they couldn’t handle a correction until 1978???

1978 is stunning to me!!! Years after Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, just flipping amazing (in an awful way) 1978 OMG.

Zaffiroborant,
I realize this is a very sensitive and strongly emotional issue. You have asked for my opinion, I would suppose, since no LDS prophet that I know of has answered that particular question. In my opinion, there are three reasons:

1. We are talking about an authority to be given that absolutely will definitely ensure that the person who receives that authority and also the temple covenant blessings will have the condition described by the Savior when He said “the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house”. In other words, they will be tried and tested, and that testing will be by God allowing such testing or by God sending conditions of a test into the lives of that person. (Think of Abraham.)

For God not to have revealed the change until 1978 does not mean many wonderful people were not ready for that change; it means the whole body of people represented may not have been ready for that change and ready to make covenants they would absolutely keep with fixed determination and resoluteness including when others would scoff at them for being part of a new religion that believed in “strange new doctrine”–regardless of all the "rain’ and the “floods” and the “winds” that would most definitely come into the lives of that whole body of people when they received those covenants. I think God knows the hearts of humankind better than men know the hearts of humankind, and knew when the timing was sufficient to bring that testing process into the lives of a whole group who could meet the challenge successfully and would flourish.

1. The church as a body of saints needed to be unified sufficiently that this doctrine would be embraced with joyfulness and celebration. I think it was. I don’t think it would have been in 1930 or 1950, nor perhaps in 1970.
2. For the revelation about the “timing being right” to be received, the twelve apostles needed to be absolutely united about this timing, with absolutely no lingering hesitation. Call it the weaknesses of men or whatever, but if they weren’t ready to vote unitedly on this, then the inspiration and revelation would simply not come until such time as they were ready. That is how the quorum of the Twelve works–it must be united on a vote, and that unity must be from the heart and soul of each of those men voting. It had been discussed many times, and when the prophet could sense that there was a unified feeling, then he would feel the time was right to ask Heavenly Father for the revelation that would be unitedly received by both the Twelve and the membership of the church. That came in 1978.

You’ll probably scoff at this answer, but it’s an opinion so scoff all you wish–I told a congregation in January 1976 that I looked forward to the coming day when the wonderful blacks who are such a choice people (I had met several on my LDS mission) would receive the full blessings of the gospel, and I’m sure others had had those same feelings. God has a different timetable than humankind’s timetable, for just about everything He does. He will always try the patience and faith of people–always.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

For God not to have revealed the change until 1978 does not mean many wonderful people were not ready for that change; it means the whole body of people represented may not have been ready for that change and ready to make covenants they would absolutely keep with fixed determination and resoluteness including when others would scoff at them for being part of a new religion that believed in “strange new doctrine”–regardless of all the "rain’ and the “floods” and the “winds” that would most definitely come into the lives of that whole body of people when they received those covenants. I think God knows the hearts of humankind better than men know the hearts of humankind, and knew when the timing was sufficient to bring that testing process into the lives of a whole group who could meet the challenge successfully and would flourish.
.

So what you are saying in the bolded part is it was black people who weren’t ready to make and keep covenants.

 

[estesbob]

Cormaria,
Paul has given you some quotes, but please be aware that in 1978 and thereafter, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said that anything that had been said about Blacks by any LDS leader including him before 1978, should not be regarded as true and should be replaced with new understanding that had come by revelation through a living prophet. So since he said that and was very adamant about that, I hope you understand that the idea that it is a “Mormon teaching” is completely wrong. It is an opinion formerly given as an opinion by some then-prominent LDS leaders, who have since been proven completely wrong.

That is not a current “Mormon teaching” at all, nor was it ever correct doctrine.

Peace to you.

Why would god wait for 150 or so years to correct this false teaching? Are all Mormon doctrines subject to change at the whim of the current president?

 

[ParkerD]

So what you are saying in the bolded part is it was black people who weren’t ready to make and keep covenants.

Zaffiroborant,
Sorry to inform, but you can find examples of exactly that on this website.

It’s more than just “keeping covenants”. I wrote more than that, and meant more than that. It has to do with whether a whole group of people were ready to more than just “accept covenants” that included making significant changes in their lives. It has to do with knowing that those covenants are absolutely, positively, no question about it with God, and therefore should be kept regardless of the storms of life or the mockers and the scorners and those who would say “you’ve done the wrong thing–you don’t know the real voice of the Spirit” and such people could retain both their integrity of covenant-making and integrity of knowing that they did indeed recognize the voice of the Spirit. I don’t think that is a light thing at all.

The sifting processes in this life are going on all the time, among all people. There were many patient, humble and loving people among that group who were ready whenever the Lord’s timetable was ready. I admire their patience and grittiness with complete admiration. There were and will still be others who were and are sifted away from the blessings available, because of whatever reason, but by their own choosing. The sifting is part of God’s plan for His children.

What a person really, deep-down wants is what they will eventually receive in terms of making covenants with God and Christ, and overcoming adversity through being faithful to those covenants and being supported because of obedience.

 

[TheosisM]

Zaffiroborant,
Sorry to inform, but you can find examples of exactly that on this website.

It’s more than just “keeping covenants”. I wrote more than that, and meant more than that. It has to do with whether a whole group of people were ready to more than just “accept covenants” that included making significant changes in their lives. It has to do with knowing that those covenants are absolutely, positively, no question about it with God, and therefore should be kept regardless of the storms of life or the mockers and the scorners and those who would say “you’ve done the wrong thing–you don’t know the real voice of the Spirit” and such people could retain both their integrity of covenant-making and integrity of knowing that they did indeed recognize the voice of the Spirit. I don’t think that is a light thing at all.

The sifting processes in this life are going on all the time, among all people. There were many patient, humble and loving people among that group who were ready whenever the Lord’s timetable was ready. I admire their patience and grittiness with complete admiration. There were and will still be others who were and are sifted away from the blessings available, because of whatever reason, but by their own choosing. The sifting is part of God’s plan for His children.

What a person really, deep-down wants is what they will eventually receive in terms of making covenants with God and Christ, and overcoming adversity through being faithful to those covenants and being supported because of obedience.

So…all other peoples were ready for this except those of African descent?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
Thanks–I enjoyed the reading you posted to read.

No Mormon has “gone after Adam” in the way you seem to suggest. Not one that I know of, anyway. But a few people or more have been tested as to whether they personally have the Holy Ghost with them to detect when a person (even the prophet) is giving an opinion versus when the prophet should be followed even if to follow is not popular or not comfortable, such as those who were asked to colonize in places that were difficult, and those asked to colonize after they had already put in a great deal of work settling in one place.

I admire those people so much. They were resilient and had great faith. They trusted God would help them, and He did. But it was not without challenges–it was no picnic. They could have given up at any point. But guess what–they didn’t. They had the Holy Ghost, and they had the commitment and fortitude to do what seemed nearly impossible to do. They prayed to Heavenly Father for help, and He heard their prayers and helped them, and blessed their lives and their families. Those are my kind of people.

We are talking about an authority to be given that absolutely will definitely ensure that the person who receives that authority and also the temple covenant blessings will have the condition described by the Savior when He said “the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house”. In other words, they will be tried and tested, and that testing will be by God allowing such testing or by God sending conditions of a test into the lives of that person. (Think of Abraham.)

. . .I think God knows the hearts of humankind better than men know the hearts of humankind, and knew when the timing was sufficient to bring that testing process into the lives of a whole group who could meet the challenge successfully and would flourish.

. . .The church as a body of saints needed to be unified sufficiently that this doctrine would be embraced with joyfulness and celebration. I think it was. I don’t think it would have been in 1930 or 1950, nor perhaps in 1970.

For the revelation about the “timing being right” to be received, the twelve apostles needed to be absolutely united about this timing, with absolutely no lingering hesitation. Call it the weaknesses of men or whatever, but if they weren’t ready to vote unitedly on this, then the inspiration and revelation would simply not come until such time as they were ready.

That is how the quorum of the Twelve works–it must be united on a vote, and that unity must be from the heart and soul of each of those men voting. It had been discussed many times, and when the prophet could sense that there was a unified feeling, then he would feel the time was right to ask Heavenly Father for the revelation that would be unitedly received by both the Twelve and the membership of the church. That came in 1978.

Parker:

Your argument, “For the revelation about the “timing being right” to be received, the twelve apostles needed to be absolutely united about this timing, with absolutely no lingering hesitation,” is not compatible with the strong racist comments of early Mormon Prophets and Apostles.

For the “timing” argument to work; one would have to believe that God gives false prophecies, until the people are ready to receive true prophecies. This is not a principle I can accept.

The following is a link to “Dispelling the Black Myth,” by by Renee Olson (Mormon):
fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Dispelling_the_Black_Myth.html
Last Updated June 12, 2006
Copyright © 2009 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research. All Rights Reserved.

Renee Olson quotes some of the remarks by LDS leaders that could be viewed as racist. However, she does not claim their remarks were not racist, nor does she claim an issue of “timing.”

Olson defends the Mormon Church by saying that “Heavenly Father” does not suddenly impart “all of His wisdom and knowledge” to those ordained to the Quorum of Twelve; and the Apostles are “human first and Apostles second”–entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. I am paraphrasing, so for her exact words, follow the link I provided above.

The fact remains that you have Mormon Prophets claiming revelations from God, that turn out to be wrong–even very offensive. You have current Prophets disagreeing with earlier Prophets.

That creates a serious problem for LDS. I admire your perseverance in defending your faith, Parker; but there are false revelations, proclaimed by Mormon Prophets, that just cannot be explained in any way that is believable----other than to conclude they were false prophets.

Deuteronomy Chapter 18:

20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’

21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’

— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Anna