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

[thecourt]

I do not need any subscription to gospelink.

The prophets say things some of it should not be taken as scripture. This fallen talk is example of that.

Just because one of found it on gospelink means nothing to me.

I go back to the Old Testament times when all the men of the time did not hold the priesthood.

 

[dianaiad]

If it’s going to take your church another millennium to figure out they did something wrong, maybe they aren’t what they claim to be.

Be very careful with language like that, Rebecca. You claim that your church is the divinely led church of God, too, remember? This is what I’m talking about here; because LDS and Catholic claims are pretty much the same–that is, both claim to have the authority of God to act in His Name, both believe that they are divinely led; both have a belief about their leaders in which at times they speak with the voice of God (that is what infallibility means). Since the claims are the same, then the result our actions have would have the SAME effect upon both claims. If our actions prove us wrong, then what do your actions, which did so much more harm and lasted for so much longer, prove yours to be?

THIS is the point, the entire point; we disagree with each other upon doctrine and dogma. Addressing those differences is logical. But for a Catholic to claim that the LDS church is false and untrue because of past racist policies and beliefs is to…it’s not the pot calling the kettle black. It doesn’t matter who calls the kettle black: if it is black, it’s black. What YOU are doing, though, is like having the pot call the kettle black–and then trying to get it kicked out of the kitchen because it IS black–not recognizing that if ‘black’ is something that disqualifies the kettle from the kitchen, that disqualification applies equally to the pot.

You claim that God allowed the Catholic church to be racist…and that the Popes who issued racist statements and initiated racist policies were not speaking for Him…even though their words moved nations. Your claim is that your racist past does not prove that the Catholic church is incorrect. It is still divinely led, with true apostolic succession and authority. You claim that God allowed this racism to exist for, quite literally, millenia–until the Catholics themselves stopped it. (which, while they have made huge strides in the area, they haven’t quite managed.)

You claim that if we are what we claim to be, that is…a church led by prophets who recieved direct revelation, that such racism would not have happened at all. Never mind that in the 'true church" (yours) He evidently did just that, to a far greater extent and for a far longer period of time.

We’re talking about here and now. Your church wasn’t even around at all, seeing it hadn’t been made up until the 19th century. So yes, sit back in your easy chair and pretend like you can compare 1978 to 178 or 878 or 1178.

Talking about ‘here and now’ would not be a good idea, Rebecca, if you mean right now and right here, because as far as Catholicism has come in this area, it has still not reached the level of equality of relations and representation that the Mormons have–and we did it in the space of a morning.

I am NOT downplaying the advances Catholicism has made; they have been great. Of course, they needed to be, considering the point at which they began, but nevertheless they have been great. From where I sit, though, it’s like listening to bronze medal winner criticise the gold medal winner for not running fast enough.

cont. on next post…

 

[dianaiad]

cont. from previous post;

When it comes to mormonism, you can only reasonably compare from 1830 onward,

How is that? You mean that the legitamacy of Catholic claims to being true date only from 1830? Nothing that Catholics did before WE claim the priesthood was restored matters? Do you really want to say that, Rebecca?

Catholics claim that we are not Christian. If that is so, then we are a new religion altogether…and can compare the first 180 years of our existance only to the first 180 years of yours, no matter WHEN your first 180 years was. That does not work well for you, y’know, in terms of slavery and race relations.

As well, with such a comparison, there is also this: we fixed our problems, which were (from anybody’s POV) far less egregious than Catholic transgressions in this area, with one revelation and one morning’s work. All criticism of Mormon racism has to stop at 1978…because since then there has been NO such official racism, or racism from the leaders–and individual members who display it get corrected very quickly. So we did it in 150 years. Again…it took the Catholics HOW long? Come to think of it, we came further in that one morning than you guys came in 1500 years. I realize that there are a lot more of you than there are of us, but I mean…really?

other than that, you’re making a hell of a lot up. As if mormonism existed 1000 years ago, your priesthood ban would have been lifted 800 years ago. Please. Such fictions are for movie screen.

But Mormonism did NOT exist 1000 years ago…but Catholicism did, and if the criticism you aim at us is accurate,(that such things shouldn’t have existed at all in a church supposedly divinely led) then your racist policies should have never begun, much less taken hundreds and hundreds…and hundreds…of years to fix.

The point is, Rebecca, that if we had followed the Catholic timeline, then right now we would be authorizing slave sales in the streets of SLC–because that’s where YOU were a little less than 200 years into your history. Whether we would have at the time or not is moot; the fact is, you DID.

Frankly, I think that this attack upon Mormon race relations is an attempt to deflect attention away from a scandalous and embarrasing fact; if Catholicism is ‘true,’ then God allowed–and perhaps even approved–horrendous actions of racism for most of its history; but God did not allow Mormons to remain racist; He interfered, and we listened. Perhaps that’s the problem right there; God didn’t stop you—but He did stop us. Is that the problem?

Oh, you really do not want to compare Catholic race relations to Mormon ones since 1830, either.

You’ve created for yourself a very fine fantasy land.

the fantasy is yours, Rebecca. Every fact, every bit of history that I have posted, is true. Catholics and Catholic Popes did and said every single thing I said they did. I was told to provide the references, and I did–even more than were demanded of me. I do not deny that the priesthood ban was a racist policy; correct or not, it was racist by definition: different treatment according to race. God stopped it. We do not have any racist policies, nor can we now be called racist by any stretch of the imagination.

He did not stop you. Why is that, do you suppose?

Also, perhaps you didn’t notice you have placed everything ever done wrong at the foot of the Catholic church. Would this include how mormons think about race?

No, Rebecca, I haven’t placed 'everything ever done wrong at the foot of the Catholic church." I have only placed everything the Catholic church did wrong at the foot of the Catholic church. this is not the proper place to discuss what, say…the Poles did wrong, or what spelunkers have done wrong, or…???

Are you really going to tell me that someone other than a Catholic is responsible for what a Pope writes, commands or does?

 

[hosemonkey]

I have looked up this article which may help put the Mormon teachings into perspective. What needs explanation is not so much that the Mormon church took the stance it did, but rather why it continued on for so long. I believe that part of the answer was that for a long time the church existed mainly in the Rocky Mountain west. Those who lived in such enclaves would not have their faces rubbed in the issue that much, because they would see few or no black faces in their communities. But the expansion of the church forced the issue into prominence. Whether the church was growing back east, or overseas, there was an increase in members who could not hold the priesthood, and embarassing questions for a modern age were being asked more and more loudly. I was told that it culminated with the announcement of a temple in Brazil, where most of the members would not qualify to attend.

See blacklds.org/mauss

Your comments are probably correct. What rankles is the failure of mormons to acknowlege the wrongness of this practice, blaming it on some kind of “revelation”, along with the “revelation” on polygamy, both ended by yet again another “revelation.” Both of these so-called “revelations” came just in time to solve some very knotty problems brought on by the practice of both of these so-called “sacred ordinances” as revealed by Almighty God Himself. According to mormon theology, God ordained the practice of polygamy and the subsurvient status of Blacks. God appearently changed His mind when Utah desired statehood and again in 1978 when the status of Blacks changed. I submit that these “revelations” were the product of the church heirarchy’s need to get into synch with modern times and the realization that organizational racism was hurting the mormon recruiting effort. Pure self-interest, not “revelation” from God. For mormons, “revelations” are on tap to handle any little glitch that arises. Handy.

 

[Rocket_Man]

I do not need any subscription to gospelink.
I go back to the Old Testament times when all the men of the time did not hold the priesthood.

Great, then you can also show us the biblical justification for withholding the temple endowments and sealings from the Negro as well.

Mark Peterson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in 1954 he gave this speech to the teachers of religion: mormonismi.net/mep1954/

Below is a excerpt of the speech. You can judge for yourself.

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political ffiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth…. We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject… “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…

 

[dianaiad]

Does it matter when a person asks for forgiveness. Is this really what you believe?

It doesn’t to God…but it should to the guy who took 2000 years to ask for it himself, then turns around and criticises the guy who hasn’t done it yet–after 30 years. The hypocrisy is a little stinky, there.

You are jumping around. First, its no ordination of black man in America. Now, it is an apology.

I’m not jumping. You are moving the goal posts: you have had to abandon all other attacks and are now clinging to 'well, WE apologized!"

Ok…so?

Which date is it that you would like to use?

There is no moving of goal posts. I acknowledge both churches have had their sins. So, what is the next step once you recognize this is the case?

Your church is still in the “I don’t acknowledge the sin” phase. You, I believe, are not.

Personally? I’m in the 'let he who is without sin throw the first stone" phase.

Which do you think is better; a politically correct apology for actions that are STILL GOING ON, or the action which eliminates the problem completely?

the fact is, Rebecca, the CoJCoLDS is not racist, officially or un–and there have been no, repeat, NO racist policies or problems that you can point at since 1978. Anywhere. Towards anyone, for anything. No news reports. No complaints of discrimination. Nothing. The only thing anybody can point to is the pre-1978 priesthood ban, which was reversed in the space of a sunny summer morning.

yet Catholics are still finding new things to apologize for—and not, evidently, actually FIX; like the problems with native priests and nuns in South Africa, or the fact that the Catholic black population (all shades of ‘black,’ not simply those of African descent) are not represented proportionately in the clergy–by a factor of about 10 to 1. In fact, most black Catholic congregations must be administered to by white priests—because there are not enough black ones…

And you still HAVE ‘black congregations,’ not simply Catholic congregations." You celebrate them.

so lay off, Rebecca. Disagree with LDS doctrine and beliefs if you wish; that is a reasonable and logical way to oppose us. Say that we are incorrect because we believe the wrong things. But when you claim that we are wrong BECAUSE we have been racist in the past, you are treading on very, very, very dangerous ground; because if we are wrong because we were racist for 150 years, what does that say about Catholicism, which was unabashadly racist for considerably over a millenium—and in spite of the advances of recent years, STILL HAS PROBLEMS IN THAT AREA?

 

[dianaiad]

You can see then, how in 1978 when they reversed the ban, why practicing Mormon’s everywhere were elated. They thought their messiah was coming soon. It didn’t really have anything to do with the reversal of racism.

…and you know this because…???

As one of those Mormons, I would be quite interested to find out what I REALLY thought that morning.

Please. Enlighten me.

 

[dianaiad]

Your comments are probably correct. What rankles is the failure of mormons to acknowlege the wrongness of this practice, blaming it on some kind of “revelation”, along with the “revelation” on polygamy, both ended by yet again another “revelation.” Both of these so-called “revelations” came just in time to solve some very knotty problems brought on by the practice of both of these so-called “sacred ordinances” as revealed by Almighty God Himself. According to mormon theology, God ordained the practice of polygamy and the subsurvient status of Blacks. God appearently changed His mind when Utah desired statehood and again in 1978 when the status of Blacks changed. I submit that these “revelations” were the product of the church heirarchy’s need to get into synch with modern times and the realization that organizational racism was hurting the mormon recruiting effort. Pure self-interest, not “revelation” from God. For mormons, “revelations” are on tap to handle any little glitch that arises. Handy.

Gee, I wonder what y’all would say if Pres. Monson actually DID apologize and say that the priesthood ban was a complete misinterpretation of scripture and thought, and that God allowed it only until the members of the church got their act together enough to accept the correction?

Would it matter to anybody here, or would it simply cause a fresh spate of attacks and mockery?

Given that I already know the answer to that one, (and so do you…) then I fail to see why such a statement would do any good.

The present official position on this is…we don’t know why. Maybe it’s the reason I stated. Maybe it’s because–the people of black African descent finally reached the head of the line and it’s their turn…and possibly their turn more than that of anybody else. I dunno; lots of thoughts and speculation going on out there.

But you have no right to demand an apology. Nobody does. The only people who MIGHT have that right are the members of the church who were affected (like, for instance, my husband, children…and through them, ME,) and we don’t need one.

 

[Rocket_Man]

…and you know this because…???

As one of those Mormons, I would be quite interested to find out what I REALLY thought that morning.

Please. Enlighten me.

I don’t know you, how old you were in 1978, or how well you knew church prophecy then. But, as was posted by someone other than you, there were those in the church that knew there was a direct connection with the ban being lifted and the second coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[thecourt]

TheosisM’s claim that some documentary said that black men were ordained to the priesthood prior to June 1978 is not accurate. The church did not ordain any black men prior to June 1978.

I recognize some what to believe the church did — it did not.

 

[higherednerd]

I was told that some were literally jumping for joy. I joined a few months after this, so I wasn’t there. I can believe that some were happy, because I was in a major metropolitan area, we had lots of modern, educated people, many converts from more racially mixed areas, and the doctrine had become an embarassment in modern times.

 

[higherednerd]

There is ample internal documentation to establish that there were a few early black men who held the priesthood. Mormons have always been great at documenting themselves. A listing of documentation concerning Elijah Abel’s membership and church activities (he was a Seventy) can be found here: mormonsocialscience.org/node/62 and in many other places.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know you, how old you were in 1978, or how well you knew church prophecy then. But, as was posted by someone other than you, there were those in the church that knew there was a direct connection with the ban being lifted and the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Only that the ban had to be lifted before He came again. There are quite a few other things that have to happen, evidently, before He shows up that have not happened…and in spite of a LOT of speculation (by Mormon and non-Mormon alike…it’s fun…) it doesn’t look as if it is going to happen in the morning.

Or next year. Or the next decade. Or century…

Or…Maybe He will. (shrug) Not to worry, He’ll figure it out and come when He wants to. Checking one item off of a long list of things yet to happen doesn’t exactly announce His imminent, immediate, arrival.

 

[thecourt]

Rocket_Man does not understand the church could certain prevents these ordinances from being done.

I am further amazed how non Mormons are concerned about some who at one time could have temple work done yet some of you moan and complain until the cows come home about how your daughter married a Mormon and you could not be present in the temple because you have no temple recommend.

 

[dianaiad]

TheosisM’s claim that some documentary said that black men were ordained to the priesthood prior to June 1978 is not accurate. The church did not ordain any black men prior to June 1978.

I recognize some what to believe the church did — it did not.

My friend, yes; Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel as an Elder on March 3, 1836, and he was made a member of the Seventies Quorum in December of 1836. there are some claims that Elijah was not, after all, African American—but he was, and Brigham Young’s actions later confirm this when he refused to allow Abel to recieve his endowments in the Temple in 1853.

…and if there was ever a man who can be described as pure, faithful and righteous, it has to be him. We do not know why this ban existed. There is a great deal of speculation one way or another; but the facts are as they are, and denying them is not helping your faith or mine. People who criticise us for that ban…and who mock us for the 1978 revelation that reversed it…will not retreat or cease to criticize no matter what we do in this issue, so we may as well just let all the facts hang out there. (shrug) the truth doesn’t bother me or affect my faith in the slightest.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Only that the ban had to be lifted before He came again.

Brinham Young in 1859 said “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 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”

Have any other descendents of Adam recieved the blessing since 1978?

 

[higherednerd]

Not only Elijah Abel, but his son and grandson held priesthood office. This is a matter of official Mormon record. I am told that his descendents married into the white community and are known in their home towns. I’ve read speculation that Elijah was an octoroon, so his descendants would have looked whiter and whiter as generations went by if what I heard was true, yet the church (with its emphasis on genealogy and record keeping) would certainly know. Deseret was a smaller community then than now, and people knew each other quite well, especially the pioneer contingent.

 

[Rocket_Man]

and Brigham Young’s actions later confirm this when he refused to allow Abel to recieve his endowments in the Temple in 1853.

Tell us what this means to a Mormon if they are refused the endowment?

 

[higherednerd]

No endowment, no garments, no sealings for time and eternity, basically the person remains in a condition similar to LDS children. However, Elijah Abel held the Priesthood, so this analogy is not 100% in his case, but until the priesthood ban was lifted, the condition of black Mormons was similar to that of Mormon children in terms of their religious privileges. But that is for life only. There was always an assumption that some day the curse was to be lifted, and it has always been Mormon doctrine that no blessing you are worthy of will be withheld in eternity.

 

[Rocket_Man]

. But that is for life only

“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,

I thought the endowment is for the life to come?