Close Topic Options

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 18

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

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:

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

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?

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

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.

Priesthood Mormon and 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.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

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?

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.

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?

Page 18 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And:

c

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

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

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Okay, how about this?

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.

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.

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 18

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:

Possible error?

David O. Mc Kay also said:

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:

Just recently Elder Uchtforf stated:

Elder Holland stated in the PBS interview:

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.

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.

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 18

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

And:

And don't forget:

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:

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.