T
thecourt
Guest
Where you folks have the container to pull the recycled garbage out I will never know.
If Catholics understood revelation and actually received any relevations, this would not be a issue.
Where can I find the Mormon teaching on Africans being fallen Angels?
- Status
If Catholics understood revelation and actually received any relevations, this would not be a issue.
H
higherednerd
Guest
This is not a simple issue. Joseph Smith had very liberal feelings and ideas, and was noted for his sympathy and kind words about black people. He ordained Elijah Abel, a black man, to the priesthood and others as well. Abel’s priesthood was never taken away. When the Mormon church decided to deny the priesthood to black men, it was widely seen as a political compromise as the slavery issue was heating up in the nation. Abel’s son and grandson also held priesthood office. If you go deep into the history of the church, you will find the early presidents receiving correspondence asking if a Mormon youth can marry a certain person in the temple, because of a fact that is in the past in her genealogy. So, in a very few cases, exceptions were made, even when the official policy was forbidding.
T
thecourt
Guest
FALSE!!! No black man was ordained to the priesthood prior to June 1978. The view of denial of the priesthood should be viewed in this light — during Old Testament times, all men then were not ordained to the priesthood so withholding some men from being ordained to the priesthood is not new.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
You are misinformed, Thecourt. Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel, a black man of African ancestry, to the priesthood.
T
TheosisM
Guest
No black man was ordained to the Mormon priesthood prior to June 1978? Um, I think you need to research your own history. There is a new Mormon documentary on the experience of blacks in Mormonism called “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons” that discusses the few blacks that were ordained to the LDS priesthood prior to the 1978 revelation.
J
JaMc
Guest
I only skimmed through most of this thread, but, it’s always seemed a little “convenient” to me how, in the Mormon church, a new revelation is made on an issue, be it polygamy or race, as soon as it becomes politically unacceptable.
D
dianaiad
Guest
It is not a matter of forgiveness, Rebecca. There is nothing TO forgive. The Catholic church is as much a product if the times as it was a producer of them; people have been racist…and not racist…according to cultures for as long as there have been people—and frankly, the last century or two is to your credit. This is a GOOD thing. The success that the Catholic church has had over the last century is to be commended, and THIS generation of people CAN NOT BE CRITICIZED for the actions of the generations before them. The question is, how are you NOW?
…and this generation, and that of my parents, is to be commended, no matter what church they belong to, in terms of civil rights and race relations.
I don’t think you are getting it even yet. I don’t attack the Catholic church for its racist past; it is past. What I DO is point out that when Catholics criticize Mormons for racism, even though we cannot in any way be termed racist now, and use that percieved racist past to prove that Mormonism is evil, teaches false doctrine and is thus incorrect, that they are standing on shaky ground; every argument they use against us may, by a factor of 9 or 10, be used against you. I cry foul.
The Catholics point to racist quotes from LDS Leaders, and an historically racist policy in the CoJCoLDS, to prove that because of that history, LDS doctrines and beliefs are incorrect; Mormonism is wrong.
In response, Mormons point out that the Catholic church has been historically guilty of racist policies far more egregious than anything the Mormons were guilty of, and took far longer to change those policies; they use quotes from Catholic leaders, including Popes, to prove their point; thus claiming that if Mormons are doctrinally incorrect because of their racist past, then the Catholics are equally incorrect, doctrinally—for the same reason.
The Mormons
Object to the Catholic criticism and use of quotes from leaders, claiming that prophets are prophets only when they speak as such; and that those words, in order to be doctrine, must be accepted and canonized in scripture. Other than that, what they say is important, but may be opinion and may be wrong; certainly not to be placed at the same level as doctrine/dogma. If they have opinions that are not set as doctrine, those opinions do not prove that the church is “wrong,” or “incorrect.”
**The Catholics: **
Object to the Mormon response because: the Popes are infallible only when certain specific requirements are met; when they are not met, no matter how influential their words are, they can still be erroneous and even sinful; if later it is determined that they WERE incorrect, their statements do not prove that Catholicism is wrong, or “untrue.”
**The Mormons: **
Had a racist policy of not allowing blacks of African descent to hold the priesthood for 150 years. Other dark/black skinned peoples could and did hold the priesthood. Quite a few leaders had racist opinions, along with their non-Mormon contemporaries (Catholics had that problem, too) and wrote them down. A few early Mormons owned slaves–and Utah territory was admitted as a slave territory, though Brigham Young changed the status of those slaves to 'indentured servitude." The difference is that slaves are property and servants are people with civil rights.
The Catholics:
Had a systematic policy of conquering, enslaving and engaging in global slave trading for many centuries. During their presence in the Americas, they actively supported the enslavement of native peoples, and were instrumental in the active importation of African slaves to the area. Catholic leaders and Popes were almost universal in declaring that slavery was doctrinally acceptable, up through at least 1878, and the Vatican actively engaged in the slave trade for most of its existance.
**The Mormons: **
Reversed that policy of withholding the priesthood in 1978, at which time all worthy male men of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood, and within a year of that, there were literally hundreds of black bishops and other priesthood leaders. Thirty years later, there are general authorities of black African descent, and one, Joseph Sitati (from Kenya) is quite likely to be called as an apostle within the next few years.
**
The Catholics:**
The first black American priest was ordained nearly 400 years after the advent of Catholics in the Americas. Today the proportion of black Catholic priests to the black Catholic population is between 10 to 40% that of the representation of white Catholic priests to the white Catholic population. There are, currently, about 10 Cardinals of black African descent, out of 199 Cardinals in total. After over 1500 years, blacks comprise 18% of the Catholic membership….and about 5% of the leadership.
So. What is the difference between the two groups, as racist groups? IS there one? Is the real difference between the two groups one that you are truly comfortable with? Certainly the defenses against using the quotes from the other groups leaders are precisly the same…and precisely as valid. So…why do you get to declare that we must accept everything OUR leaders say as gospel truth when we understand that they are allowed to have opinions and be wrong, but we do not get to declare the same for yours, even though the words of YOUR leaders moved armies and enslaved millions?
Why do the opinions (which we claim can be in error) of our leaders prove our faith false, when the opinions (which you claim can be in error) of yours does not prove you false?
Why doesn’t this double standard bother you?
W
why_me
Guest
There are certain people on this section of the forum that attempt to destroy every mormon thread that someone may produce. They repeat the same old same old over and over again. It doesn’t matter if that particular opinion or fact has been refuted. They will return with the same comment.
Plus, there are certain posters who have an axe to grind against the lds church. They are not many, but they constantly hijack the mormon threads with loaded words that are meant to provoke a mormon response. Rebecca, Paul, Twopeking (actually I think he is one not two), Stephen, Mijack, hosemonkey etc all have hijacked threads with antimormonisms. It is there MO and nothing to do about it.
Their tone betrays their hatred. And they do understand the double standard but…they chose to ignore the double standard because it doesn’t fit into their antimormon world view. What is sad about these socalled catholics is that the catholic church would not condone their posts about mormonism at all. Catholics generally do not give the mormon church much thought and they certainly do not see mormons in a negative way or light. They are quite tolerant individuals.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Rebecca, it is true that traditionally we have viewed the Pacific Islanders as being descended from the Lamanites. If you want to have a giggle over that, go ahead–but my response was to Stephen’s claim: “The racist policy held by the Mormon Church, in total, completely around the world, all of it, everywhere, without exception anywhere in the world, to not let black men hold their priesthood.”Oh. OH. I know. I know.
That’s because Pacific Islanders are Lamanites.
Which is clearly incorrect.
Of course, you are free to figure out how the Dravidians of India could be descendants of the Lamanites, if you want to. They could also hold the priesthood.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Really? Have you declared this to be 'the standard?" Because from my readings of history, it was ‘standard’ to call pretty much anybody who was neither “white,” nor “brown”…'black." Of course, being ‘brown’ wasn’t all that great, but “black” was attached to anybody with a skin closer to chocolate than to pink. From what I can tell, the Pacific Islanders and the south Indians (Dravidians) were universally described as 'black."I thought it was standard in the USA that when we refer to someone as “black” it means African American/African descent, and not South Asians or others with “black” skin.
-A “black [male] of African descent”
D
dianaiad
Guest
You make a truly stupid statement, and when you are called on it, you retreat to the 'well,I know I said “black,” and even though that term has been used to refer to dark skinned peoples of all heritages, I didn’t mean that; I meant 'dark skinned people of negroid African descent."
Disengenuous doesn’t even come close to describing your attempt to weasel out of this one, Stephen.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Uhmn…I’m sorry, but he’s right. Elijah Able was indeed ordained, and his priesthood was never taken from him.
H
higherednerd
Guest
The ordination of Elijah Abel and of other black men is a matter of recorded Mormon history and there is no reason to doubt it any more than the presidency of George Washington. A brief summary article is available in wikipedia with links to historic sources and scholarly works (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel). Both Brigham Young and John Taylor (2nd and 3rd presidents) were called upon to decide questions of eligibility of some members for Temple ordinances due to information concerning their ancestral lineages.
H
higherednerd
Guest
So why did the Mormon church come down against black men holding the priesthood, even while Joseph Smith was still alive? My theory is defensive politics. Look what ordinary Mormons experienced back in those days. Most were not inner circle church leaders. You might follow the prophet across the nation, and where you’d settle you’d build a cabin for your family, fence in some land for your livestock, and plant crops. But increasingly, you might have to run from a tar and feather mob, or flee a posse trying to jail you or kill you. When you finally made it back home, you might find cinders, and your family and livestock gone. When you finally found your family, you’d learn that they were ordered out of your home with the clothes on their backs, no time to prepare, and the home burned down behind them. You’d have to sell for pennies or abandon the land you’d bought. The Mormons are the only religion I know of where a state governor issued an extermination order against them. Slavery was becoming a hot-button issue and the Mormons had been driven into areas previously settled by Southerners (they were mostly from New England in the beginning). Joseph feared the mob, for what they might do to ordinary members. Brigham and others seemed to partake of racial myths and notions common to that era, while Joseph’s views were very liberal.
T
TheosisM
Guest
I wasn’t talking about history, I was talking about today, because it seemed as if your issue with the poster who said that all “blacks” everywhere were denied the priesthood, was that you were defining “black” as anyone with black skin, when today, when we refer to someone as a “black” person, 9 out of 10 times (yes I just made that up) they’re referring to someone of African descent (regardless of whether their skin is actually black, or caramel like mine), therefore I thought it was quite clear who the poster was referring to when he said that all “blacks” everywhere were denied the priesthood.
H
higherednerd
Guest
South Pacific Islanders, who are sometimes quite dark, were never under the priesthood ban.
T
TheosisM
Guest
right, it wasn’t about skin color, it was about lineage (those of African descent).
H
higherednerd
Guest
It was about being of the lineage of Cain, who had been marked. In this way, early Americans came perilously close to the “serpent seed” notion, and allowed it to influence their theology where race was concerned.
D
dianaiad
Guest
So…you decided that ‘black’ meant ‘only those of negroid African descent,’ because of your own definition…and then decided that your definition is, of course, the only one available, and that nobody could possibly interpret it as it has been historically defined?
The problem with your interpretation is that your definition, obviously, is not universal. If it WERE, I would not have reacted. I’ve been here before, y’see.
R
Rocket_Man
Guest
Not only was there a ban on priesthood, a negro was also banned in the Mormon church from recieving the temple endowment and sealing blessings.
*Mormon President Brigham Young gave this definition of the endowment: “Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell” *
So what is more shocking then even the priesthood ban, is the withholding from the all Negro’s the secrets words, signs, and tokens, to gain exaltation into the Mormon celestial kingdom. However, a negro could be found worthy if he was a “good mormon” and enter the celestial kingdom but still only would be in bondage to those who had recieved the temple endowment (Mormons).
A “sealing,” as a generic term, means the securing, determining, or establishment of a bond of legitimacy. Among members of the LDS Church, sealing refers to the marriage of a husband and wife and to the joining together of children and parents in relationships that are to endure forever.
Likewise since the Negro could not be sealed. He was excluded from enjoying the same blessings in their eternal happiness.
Maybe some Mormon out there can explain more in detail what all was withheld in these eternal blessings?
*Mormon President Brigham Young gave this definition of the endowment: “Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell” *
So what is more shocking then even the priesthood ban, is the withholding from the all Negro’s the secrets words, signs, and tokens, to gain exaltation into the Mormon celestial kingdom. However, a negro could be found worthy if he was a “good mormon” and enter the celestial kingdom but still only would be in bondage to those who had recieved the temple endowment (Mormons).
A “sealing,” as a generic term, means the securing, determining, or establishment of a bond of legitimacy. Among members of the LDS Church, sealing refers to the marriage of a husband and wife and to the joining together of children and parents in relationships that are to endure forever.
Likewise since the Negro could not be sealed. He was excluded from enjoying the same blessings in their eternal happiness.
Maybe some Mormon out there can explain more in detail what all was withheld in these eternal blessings?
- Status