Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 18 of 20

For the benefit of those who prefer to discuss - Page 18 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 17th Apr, 2014 - 3:48am

Register Login Text RPG Play Text RPG ?     New: 2 41 110 Why Join Help Register/Login via:Register/Login via:
Welcome Guest


+  « First of 20 pgs.  14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
Posts: 154 - Views: 6737 Rating: 10/10 out of 13 Votes
Best of  Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Controversial Mormon Issue.
Post Date: 13th Apr, 2014 - 11:33pm / Post ID: #


Platinum Junior
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 36
Posts: 38
Avg: 0.0 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 0.5%
[+] Gain: 220.00 FP
Charm: 3

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 18

Attached Image QUOTE
Who made the statement? Was it President Monson? Because no one else on earth has authority to speak for the whole Church other than him. And what was "Disavowed" Precisely? The scriptures? Because that's what I quoted. If they have disavowed the scriptures, then, no, I have not heard of that.


All the points you have made so far, are all based on your personal interpretation of the scriptures. The Church disavowed the past theories that you seem fixated in believing still, not sure why. But in the words of the Church Source 3

Attached Image QUOTE
Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.


You are free to believe blacks were not valiant in the Pre-existence, that Cain and his descendants were Black and that's why they were not allowed to hold the Priesthood but you see, in the end the Church as a congregated body is clear, NONE of those theories are accepted by the modern day Church. So, it seems to me as much as you would like to attribute it to the Church, they are actually telling you quite clear on your face that they are disavowing whatever theories that have been expressed in the past about it.

I am sure you are also aware that statements of this kind done by the Church in their official web site and for the world to see do not show up automatically without proper authorization of the First Presidency. I worked for the Church before so I know firsthand this is how it is done. More? Sure:

Attached Image QUOTE
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.23


Hmmm sounds familiar? Pre-mortal existence, who was valiant and who wasn't, black skin being a curse, hmmmm.

Attached Image QUOTE
Everyone who quotes the Prophet Joseph Smith with regard to blacks and the priesthood agrees that he taught that blacks were not entitled to hold the priesthood.


I ask again, who is "everyone"? And where are those statements? Would love to see some quotes from Joseph Smith Jr. Stating such. Could you please provide?

Attached Image QUOTE
So what? That makes his memory unreliable? I don't think so. I can remember many things very clearly that happened to me more than forty years ago, including the fact that I was set apart as a missionary by President Joseph Fielding Smith. Just because it happened over forty years ago, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


Yes, it makes his memory unreliable. That's a no-brainer.

Attached Image QUOTE
No wonder he forgot that point--it never happened! Abel was not ordained by Joseph Smith, Jr. But by his father, Joseph Smith, Sr. I think that Zebedee Coltrin's memory is more reliable than yours.


Your presumptuousness is killing me here. I just kind of glanced quickly through your post but you see, if you are going to discuss Church history seriously with me, I would hope you would at least do your homework if you are not familiar with Church history.

Joseph Smith Sr did not ordain Abel to the Priesthood, he only gave him in 1836 a Patriarchal blessing where he merely mentioned his earlier ordination. It was Joseph Smith Jr. Who ordained Abel to the Priesthood.

It seems like in fact it is your memory the one that it isn't reliable after all. ;)



Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 14th Apr, 2014 - 12:18am / Post ID: #


Member Writer
***
[?] CPosts: 264
Posts: 269
Avg: 0.1 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 2.2%
[+] Gain: 40.35 FP
Charm: 1

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Attached Image QUOTE
No, but what I have given you is quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith saying that the descendants of Cain were black and that Enoch preached to all the inhabitants of the earth except the blacks.


Joseph Smith also said there were inhabitants in the moon who were six feet in height and dressed very much like the Quaker style, your point?. It doesn't mean what he said is true. Most of the Christian religions here in the US, in the 19th century, commonly assumed that Cain's "Mark" Was black skin including the Mormon Church.



Post Date: 14th Apr, 2014 - 3:18am / Post ID: #

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
A Friend

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

Attached Image QUOTE
Joseph Smith also said there were inhabitants in the moon who were six feet in height and dressed very much like the Quaker style, your point?.


I think the question is, what is YOUR point? The quotes from the Book of Moses have been voted upon by the members of the Church and accepted as the word of the Lord, while the statement about men on the moon was never even voted upon, much less accepted as the word of the Lord. So, again I ask, what is YOUR point?

Attached Image QUOTE
It doesn't mean what he said is true.

No, it doesn't, but the Book of Moses was voted upon and accepted by the members of the Church as true. If you are not a member of the Church, then I can understand why you would not believe that the Book of Moses is true.

Attached Image QUOTE
Most of the Christian religions here in the US, in the 19th century, commonly assumed that Cain's "Mark" Was black skin including the Mormon Church.


The difference being that we have modern scripture revealed to us by a modern prophet of God that tell us that the seed of Cain were black, and we have a modern prophet who has told us that the mark of Cain was a black skin, and an Apostle of the Lord who claimed to have seen Cain, and described him as "Very dark." While those other churches have none of those things, and therefore they have no basis for their belief, while we do. So again, what's your point?

Post Date: 14th Apr, 2014 - 4:49am / Post ID: #

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
A Friend

Page 18 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Attached Image QUOTE
All the points you have made so far, are all based on your personal interpretation of the scriptures. The Church disavowed the past theories that you seem fixated in believing still, not sure why. But in the words of the Church Source 3


Perhaps I just believe that truth is eternal and doesn't change from one day to the next. That would certainly destroy faith, wouldn't it?

I read that article, and guess what! It was not signed by President Monson, nor was it ever voted upon and accepted by the membership of the Church as the scriptures that I quoted were. Hence, I have to say that the scriptures that I quoted have to take precedence over any anonymous article published by the Church. Furthermore, I didn't see anywhere in the article where the Church ever disavowed a single one of the scriptures that I quoted. Perhaps you can give me the specific quote in the article that supposedly disavows any of "My interpretations" Of any of the scriptures that I quoted.

Attached Image QUOTE
You are free to believe blacks were not valiant in the Pre-existence, that Cain and his descendants were Black and that's why they were not allowed to hold the Priesthood but you see, in the end the Church as a congregated body is clear, NONE of those theories are accepted by the modern day Church.


Please forgive me, but when has the Church ever voted on this article? You are just making this up. And where in the article does it ever contradict anything that I said? Please give me the exact quote, because I honestly did not see anything in there that contradicted anything I said, and even if there was something in there that contradicts the scriptures, the scriptures have to take precedence over anything in that anonymous article.

Attached Image QUOTE
So, it seems to me as much as you would like to attribute it to the Church,


I attribute it to the scriptures that I quoted, which are very clear--so clear, in fact, that you still cannot give me any other interpretation of those scriptures than the one that I gave.

Attached Image QUOTE
they are actually telling you quite clear on your face that they are disavowing whatever theories that have been expressed in the past about it.


Are they also disavowing the scriptures, which are so clear that you can't even give me another interpretation of those scriptures than the one that I gave you?

Attached Image QUOTE
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,


I agree with that. The black skin is NOT a sign of divine disfavor or a curse. It was in the past but no longer. Why not? The answer is obvious--all those spirits in the preexistence who were not supposed to hold the priesthood in this life were born and lived prior to 1978. Those blacks who are alive today were not among those spirits in the preexistence who were to be born into lineages that were prohibited from holding the Priesthood in the past. Therefore, although the black skin was, indeed, a sign of divine disfavor in the past, both in the Book of Mormon and in the Book of Moses, nevertheless, that no longer holds true today. The black skin has lost its meaning.

Attached Image QUOTE
or that it reflects actions in a premortal life;


Again, I agree with that statement. The black skin no longer reflects actions in the preexistence. It did in the past but now no longer does. Why? The answer is obvious--all those spirits that were destined to come to the earth and be born into lineages that were prohibited from holding the priesthood have already been born and died prior to 1978. Therefore, the black skin today no longer reflects actions in a premortal life, as it once did.

Attached Image QUOTE
that mixed-race marriages are a sin;


Again, I agree, but in the very same issue of the Church News that announced the revelation on the priesthood, the Brethren also counseled against interracial marriage. They did not say that it was a sin, but just that they counseled against it.

Attached Image QUOTE
or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.


Again, I agree. There was a time when the black skin indicated that that person was not one of the noble and great ones in the preexistence, but that is no longer the case. Those spirits have all been born and died prior to 1978.

Attached Image QUOTE
Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.23


It all depends upon what what is meant by the word, "Racism." If by "Racism," It means blind prejudice based solely upon the color of a man's skin, then I agree. But what was in the past perceived as "Racism" By non-members was actually based upon revelation from God.

Attached Image QUOTE
I ask again, who is "everyone"? And where are those statements? Would love to see some quotes from Joseph Smith Jr. Stating such. Could you please provide?


Sure. I thought that you were the one who has been studying this for years. Don't you have those quotes?

Attached Image QUOTE
The spring that we went up in Zion's camp in 1834. Brother Joseph sent Brother J. P. Green and me out south to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri. On our return home, we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the priesthood, and I took up the side he had no right. Brother Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that he said he would report me to Brother Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine, which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. "All right," Said I. "I hope you will." And when we got to Kirtland, we both went to Brother Joseph's office together to make our returns, and Brother Green was as good as his word and reported to Brother Joseph that I said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, "Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood." He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don't recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject. But I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood. (Zebedee Coltrin, in Journal History, May 31, 1879, as quoted in William E. Berrett, The Church and the Negroid People, pp. 10-11.)


And:

Attached Image QUOTE
Brother A. O. Smoot and W.W. Patten, Warren Parrish and Thomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Souther States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And by those brethren it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted the Prophet Joseph and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision, as I understood was, they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their masters.
In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters but not to confer the Priesthood upon them. (A. O. Smoot, in Journal History, May 31, 1879, as quoted in William E. Berrett, The Church and the Negroid People, p. 12.)
c

I could give you another reference to George Q. Cannon, but I'm tired and want to go to bed.

Attached Image QUOTE
Your presumptuousness is killing me here. I just kind of glanced quickly through your post but you see, if you are going to discuss Church history seriously with me, I would hope you would at least do your homework if you are not familiar with Church history.

Joseph Smith Sr did not ordain Abel to the Priesthood, he only gave him in 1836 a Patriarchal blessing where he merely mentioned his earlier ordination. It was Joseph Smith Jr. Who ordained Abel to the Priesthood.

It seems like in fact it is your memory the one that it isn't reliable after all.


Since you have done your homework, perhaps you can provide the documentation for that assertion.

Post Date: 14th Apr, 2014 - 7:53pm / Post ID: #


Platinum Junior
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 36
Posts: 38
Avg: 0.0 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 0.5%
[+] Gain: 220.00 FP
Charm: 3

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Attached Image QUOTE
I read that article, and guess what! It was not signed by President Monson, nor was it ever voted upon and accepted by the membership of the Church as the scriptures that I quoted were.


The Priesthood ban was not voted upon or accepted by the membership of the Church, it's more"¦no revelation has ever been presented to the Church body with regards to the restriction except the lifting in 1978 and yet we had it in place for over a century. I don't have a problem with the scriptures you presented, I just do not believe in the interpretation you are insisting in giving them. We will have to agree to disagree on your personal interpretation of those scriptures, otherwise we will be going in circles.

Attached Image QUOTE
I agree with that. The black skin is NOT a sign of divine disfavor or a curse. It was in the past but no longer. Why not? The answer is obvious--all those spirits in the preexistence who were not supposed to hold the priesthood in this life were born and lived prior to 1978. Those blacks who are alive today were not among those spirits in the preexistence who were to be born into lineages that were prohibited from holding the Priesthood in the past. Therefore, although the black skin was, indeed, a sign of divine disfavor in the past, both in the Book of Mormon and in the Book of Moses, nevertheless, that no longer holds true today. The black skin has lost its meaning.


That's the most absurd statement you have made so far in this topic. The article on lds.org that you do not believe because it doesn't specifically say "Dear Brother Tragula, I President Monson approve this statement" (Even though it is in the official web site of the Church) states:

Attached Image QUOTE
Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.


Sorry but if I have to choose between believing the Church statement and an anonymous internet guy in a discussion forum, I will side with the Church statement. You can continue believing your theories but I have a problem with your insistence on "we" know when the Church is clearly saying they do not know.

Attached Image QUOTE
Therefore, the black skin today no longer reflects actions in a premortal life, as it once did.


Attached Image QUOTE
There was a time when the black skin indicated that that person was not one of the noble and great ones in the preexistence, but that is no longer the case.


The bolding is mine. That explanation (As quoted) is NOT accepted as official LDS doctrine. It's Tragula's doctrine. Are you going to accept that the Church does NOT agree with that or you will continue insisting?

Attached Image QUOTE
Sure. I thought that you were the one who has been studying this for years. Don't you have those quotes?


Oh you are just repeating yourself. Your first quotes of Zebedee Coltrin and Smooth I already refuted. Coltrin is not a reliable witness (And any serious scholar can determine that) both of them were Southerners and besides being a slave-owner, Smooth also wasn't keen about Joseph Smith position on slavery and and during Joseph Smith's campaign for presidency, Smoot refused to distribute literature because it included a plan to denounce slavery and provide compensation. So I"m sorry if I cannot take seriously the testimony of these two gentlemen.

Show me ONE direct and verified statement by Joseph Smith where he claimed Blacks were NOT eligible to hold the Priesthood. There is no evidence whatsoever that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime. That's a fact.

Attached Image QUOTE
Since you have done your homework, perhaps you can provide the documentation for that assertion.


You can check:

Eunice Kinney: "My Testimony of the Latter-day Work"
"Elijah Abel: The life and times of a black Priesthood holder"

There are other sources, those I can think of from my memory at the moment. It was definitely NOT Joseph Smith Sr and you can do a Google search or ask any LDS historian, he was the one who gave Abel a Patriarchal blessing a few months later after his ordination.



Post Date: 16th Apr, 2014 - 4:46am / Post ID: #

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
A Friend

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

Attached Image QUOTE
The Priesthood ban was not voted upon or accepted by the membership of the Church, it's more"¦


No, but every six months the members of the Church vote to sustain the Prophet of the Church, and every time, they have always sustained the President of the Church. The President of the Church is the President of the High Priesthood, and as such, he has authority to say who shall and who shall not receive the Priesthood. For over one hundred years, they all unanimously agreed that blacks could not hold the Priesthood. And don't forget what the Lord said: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) In this case we have many times "Two or three witnesses" Who all agreed that blacks were not allowed to hold the Priesthood.

Attached Image QUOTE
no revelation has ever been presented to the Church body with regards to the restriction except the lifting in 1978 and yet we had it in place for over a century.


No, but we have voted twice a year to sustain the President of the Church, who is the President of the High Priesthood, every one of which, for over one hundred years, unanimously prohibited blacks from holding the Priesthood. Not only that but we did vote to accept the Book of Abraham as the word of God. And what do we read in the Book of Abraham? We read that there was a particular lineage that was cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood and that Pharaoh belonged to that lineage. That is absolutely indisputable. There is no other possible interpretation for that very clear passage of scripture. And where did Pharaoh live? In Egypt. And where is Egypt? In Africa. And who lived in Africa? Black people. This is not rocket science, but it might as well be as far as some people are concerned.

Attached Image QUOTE
I don't have a problem with the scriptures you presented, I just do not believe in the interpretation you are insisting in giving them.


If there is something wrong with my interpretation, then please tell me what it is, or at least propose a better one. The fact that you are not able to do that tells me that my interpretation is the only one that makes any sense, and you know it. There simply is no other interpretation that makes any sense. If it were not the only interpretation that makes any sense, then surely you would at least propose an alternate interpretation.

Attached Image QUOTE
We will have to agree to disagree on your personal interpretation of those scriptures, otherwise we will be going in circles.


Maybe we could agree on your interpretation of those scriptures. Oh, yeah, you don't have one.

Attached Image QUOTE
Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.


By the same token, it must be admitted that neither is this statement itself accepted today as the official Church doctrine because it has not been voted upon and accepted as scripture. The scriptures, as least, have been voted upon and accepted as scripture and your inability to propose a different interpretation from mine is very clear evidence that there really is only one interpretation that makes any sense.

Attached Image QUOTE
Sorry but if I have to choose between believing the Church statement and an anonymous internet guy in a discussion forum, I will side with the Church statement. You can continue believing your theories but I have a problem with your insistence on "we" know when the Church is clearly saying they do not know.


And if I have to choose between your interpretation of an anonymous statement published on the Church website, or the only interpretation of the scriptures that makes any sense, then I will choose the scriptures, which have been voted upon and accepted by the members of the Church as the word of God.

Attached Image QUOTE
The bolding is mine. That explanation (As quoted) is NOT accepted as official LDS doctrine. It's Tragula's doctrine.


The quotation (As quoted) is NOT contradicted by anything in the statement, and you cannot show me anything in the statement that contradicts what I said. It is only contradicted by your interpretation of that statement.

Attached Image QUOTE
Are you going to accept that the Church does NOT agree with that or you will continue insisting?


Are you going to accept that the scriptures very clearly teach that thousands of years ago blacks were cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood, or will you continue on insisting that that is only my interpretation?

Attached Image QUOTE
Your first quotes of Zebedee Coltrin and Smooth I already refuted.


No, I'm sorry, but you most certainly did not. All you did was to show that you are so closed-minded that you are unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts your own, preconceived notions.

Attached Image QUOTE
And any serious scholar can determine that


Many people with Ph.D.'s have accepted the testimonies of both Coltrin and Smoot. What you are saying is that no one who disagrees with you is a serious scholar. The Lord very clearly said that "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) He did not qualify that statement whatsoever, and the fact that you refuse to accept their testimony is just more evidence of your unwillingness to accept the word of the Lord.

Attached Image QUOTE
both of them (Coltrin and Smoot) were Southerners


Sorry, but that's just not true. Coltrin was born at Ovid, Seneca County, New York. If we are going to have a serious discussion, you are going to have to be a little more careful about checking your sources.

Attached Image QUOTE
Show me ONE direct and verified statement by Joseph Smith where he claimed Blacks were NOT eligible to hold the Priesthood.


Okay, how about this?

Attached Image QUOTE
Questions by Elias Higbee: What is meant by the command in Isaiah, 52d chapter, 1st verse, which saith: Put on thy strength, O Zion--and what people had Isaiah reference to?

He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of the priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD, WHICH SHE, ZION, HAS A RIGHT TO BY LINEAGE. (D&C 113:7-8)


Here the Prophet Joseph Smith very clearly says that there was a particular lineage that had a right to the priesthood because of their lineage. And we know what lineage that was because we know what lineage Joseph Smith was. The very clear implication is that there must also be a lineage that did NOT have a right to the priesthood because of their lineage. What lineage could that be? Why don't you tell me?

And who gave us this quote? Was it Brigham Young? No, it was the Prophet Joseph Smith, and he very clearly ties the priesthood to one's lineage. If there ever was racism in this Church, then it must have started with the Prophet Joseph Smith, and not Brigham Young. And again, this was voted upon and accepted as the word of the Lord by the members of the Church.

Attached Image QUOTE
There is no evidence whatsoever that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime. That's a fact.


Your implication seems to be that the nine men who followed him were not inspired of the Lord. I'm afraid that I can't accept that. I prefer to believe the very plain teachings of both the scriptures and the modern prophets, while you apparently prefer to believe your own preconceived notions and an anonymous statement published on the Church website (Not in the scriptures), in preference to either the scriptures or the modern prophets.

I have more quotes that support both Coltrin and Smoot, but it is getting late.

Post Date: 16th Apr, 2014 - 1:48pm / Post ID: #


Platinum Junior
Lifestyle
[?] CPosts: 36
Posts: 38
Avg: 0.0 Post(s) / Day
Activity: 0.5%
[+] Gain: 220.00 FP
Charm: 3

Page 18 Blacks & Mormon Priesthood

Attached Image QUOTE
No, but every six months the members of the Church vote to sustain the Prophet of the Church, and every time, they have always sustained the President of the Church. The President of the Church is the President of the High Priesthood, and as such, he has authority to say who shall and who shall not receive the Priesthood. For over one hundred years, they all unanimously agreed that blacks could not hold the Priesthood. And don't forget what the Lord said: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) In this case we have many times "Two or three witnesses" Who all agreed that blacks were not allowed to hold the Priesthood.


Attached Image QUOTE
No, but we have voted twice a year to sustain the President of the Church, who is the President of the High Priesthood, every one of which, for over one hundred years, unanimously prohibited blacks from holding the Priesthood. Not only that but we did vote to accept the Book of Abraham as the word of God. And what do we read in the Book of Abraham? We read that there was a particular lineage that was cursed as pertaining to the Priesthood and that Pharaoh belonged to that lineage. That is absolutely indisputable. There is no other possible interpretation for that very clear passage of scripture. And where did Pharaoh live? In Egypt. And where is Egypt? In Africa. And who lived in Africa? Black people. This is not rocket science, but it might as well be as far as some people are concerned.


We sustain the Prophet which is differently from sustaining the doctrines he can put forward to the Church body to vote by common consent. There is a proper order in the Church that must be followed for something to become "doctrinal and binding".

But you see, as I have been trying to explain to you (But you seem more concerned about who is right and who is wrong and interested in throwing little sarcastic comments here and there instead of trying to have an open and civil dialogue even when we disagree) the whole issue isn't as black or white (No pun intended).

For instance, in 1949 the Church released an official letter stating that it wasn't a policy but a direct commandment from the Lord yet no revelation was ever presented to the Church body for voting and sustaining. If the issue was as clear and as doctrinal as some people would like to paint it, then we wouldn't have contradicting statements, apostles agreeing and disagreeing whether it was doctrinal or policy. Then Apostle Spencer W. Kimball stated:

Attached Image QUOTE
.. I know the Lord could change the policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure(. Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, June 1963., p. 448)


Possible error?

David O. Mc Kay also said:

Attached Image QUOTE
There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro"¦ It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it." (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism )


Remember that letter in 1949 that stated clearly that it was doctrine? Church policies do not need sustaining votes hence, it was a practice that lasted for over a century. There is no direct account of Joseph Smith ever giving priesthood restrictions to black members. And certainly no revelation or statement from him has ever been produced or even stated that establishes the priesthood ban. That's enough proof to me, including the obvious fact that he himself ordained one Black man to the Priesthood and during his life time they were at least 6 black men who were ordained.

I have a few questions concerning the ban but certainly who started the practice isn't one of them.

Bruce R. McConkie statement:

Attached Image QUOTE
We have revelations that tell us that the gospel is to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the second coming of the Son of Man. And we have revelations which recite that when the Lord comes he will find those who speak every tongue and are members of every nation and kindred, who will be kings and priests, who will live and reign on earth with him a thousand years. That means, as you know, that people from all nations will have the blessings of the house of the Lord before the Second Coming. We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, "Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things." There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.


Just recently Elder Uchtforf stated:

Attached Image QUOTE
"We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history-along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events-there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question"¦And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us-His imperfect children-and imperfect people make mistakes."


Elder Holland stated in the PBS interview:

Attached Image QUOTE
"One clear-cut position is that the folklore [concerning blacks and the priesthood] must never be perpetuated. "¦ All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know"¦"¦ At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed, because we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."


The quote you provided doesn't NOT quote the Prophet Joseph Smith stating that Blacks could NOT hold the Priesthood. That's just plain mental gymnastics on your part.

Attached Image QUOTE
I prefer to believe the very plain teachings of both the scriptures and the modern prophets, while you apparently prefer to believe your own preconceived notions and an anonymous statement published on the Church website (Not in the scriptures), in preference to either the scriptures or the modern prophets.


No, you prefer to believe in theories that the MODERN day Church does NOT support. They clearly stated that they do NOT know the reason for the ban but you seem to have more answers than the Church of Christ. Even though you do not believe in the Church OFFICIAL web site, the statement is clear when they say "THE CHURCH"¦", they are speaking OFFICIALLY for the Church whether you want to accept it or not. The Church OFFICIAL web site as stated by them is owned and operated by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am NOT saying the Church statement is DOCTRINE, what I am saying is that the Church is telling you that those theories from the past have been officially DISAVOWED and that we do NOT know the reason for the ban.

But something tells me that EVEN with the overwhelming evidence that the theories you have put forward are NOT official LDS doctrine, you will still insist that those are the reasons for the ban when they are clearly YOUR interpretation because the Church has categorically stated WE DO NOT KNOW. I will leave the time now to other posters who might want to continue discussing this issue with you.



Post Date: 17th Apr, 2014 - 3:48am / Post ID: #

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
A Friend

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 18

For the benefit of those who prefer to discuss things from the point of view of history, I submit the following:

Attached Image QUOTE
lola Gygi Timmins, a secretary in McKay's office from 1960 to 1968, recalled a day when he returned from a meeting with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the Temple. The subject had come up on several such meetings and obviously venting some feelings, he told the secretaries in his reception room that he had inquired of the Lord several times on the matter, and that the answer was, "Not yet."

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 through the time of McKay's death in 1970.

"I remember one day that President McKay came into the office. We could see that he was very much distressed. He said, 'I've had it! I'm not going to do it again!' Somebody said, "What?' He said, 'Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro. I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again, that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.' We were all, of course, a little dumbstruck. I don't think it has ever been written that that happened.. .. I'ver never told anybody about that. I can still see him coming in with a bit of a distraught appearance, which was unusual for President McKay. He always appeared as if he had everything under control." (Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, pp. 103-104)


And:

Attached Image QUOTE
Arrington [former Church Historian] asserts that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord's will on the question of blacks and the priesthood during "Three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple.. .. But the only answer he received was 'not yet.'" (Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 205, fn. 18.)


And don't forget:

Attached Image QUOTE
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28)


Here we have at least two Prophets of God who prayed about giving the blacks the priesthood, and both times the answer was the same: "Not yet."

And the answers received by these two prophets of God clearly support the testimonies of both Zebedee Coltrin and A. O. Smoot to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith had also told them that blacks could not hold the priesthood. Unless, of course, you believe that the Lord really wanted the blacks to hold the priesthood in the days of Joseph Smith, but not in the days of David O. McKay or Harold B. Lee, but then again in the days of President Kimball He wanted them to hold it again. That seems unlikely, doesn't it? What kind of changeable God is that? He can't even make up His own mind!

It seems much more likely that the Lord did not want the blacks to hold the Priesthood in the days of Joseph Smith or in the days of David O McKay, or in the days of Harold B. Lee, but in June, 1978, He told Spencer W. Kimball that the time had finally arrived, as testified to by the First Presidency of the Church, in Official Declaration 2:

Attached Image QUOTE
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood." (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, OD 2)


Thus, it seems clear that the Lord had a specific time in mind when the Priesthood was to be given to the blacks, and constant badgering by His prophets was not going to change His mind, as President McKay found out.

Guest please SHARE: "Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood" on:

+  « First of 20 pgs.  14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
Sponsored Links:

We may have more on Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood, Search first and if not Start A NEW Topic if Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood is not what you had in mind.
Options Fast Reply Add Reply Add Poll


No Registration Required!

We welcome input from visitors:
Add Comment As A Guest
Guest, please be considerate by using the appropriate tags as well as checking your grammar before submitting or it will be deleted. See: Constructive Posting Policy.

Tip TIP: Press above button ONCE only. If you come back here via the [Back] button on your browser then you will need to click [More Options] button (below) first in order to re-enable your ability to Post.

> TOPIC: Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood


Share:

Like:

Donate Compare Membership
International Discussions Coded by: BGID® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2018
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Privacy and Disclaimer pages.

LDS Topics

Current Mormon Deep Discussion from our Community:

Highlights

Russia FIFA World Cup 2018: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By JB 14 Hours Ago
Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Nitrixs 3 Days Ago
Donald Trump: Can you see him as the next President of one of the most powerful countries in the world, the United States of America? By News 6.8 Days Ago
2018 Football World Cup Forum Contest: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By KNtoran 1 Week Ago
The Trump Immigration Wall: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By News 2nd Jun, 2018 - 12:21am
Russia vs USA: Will there be a World War over the expansion of Russia? By News 8th May, 2018 - 12:12pm
Bulletproof Backpacks: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Champion 24th Mar, 2018 - 7:36pm
Nikolas Cruz: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Comstat 10th Mar, 2018 - 3:52pm
Men In Uniform - Authorized Excessive Violence: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By KNtoran 7th Feb, 2018 - 12:03am
Atheists Not To Be Feared!: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Gknightbc 18th Nov, 2017 - 5:34pm
Wide Screen Columns: Now your screen is not as empty as before. What are your thoughts about this new feature in the Community? By JB 14th Oct, 2017 - 12:32am
Offensive Trademarks: What are your thoughts about this Topic? By Abnninja 20th Jun, 2017 - 4:16pm

Updated every: 14 minutes