LDS (Mormon) Only: Blacks, the Priesthood and the Seed of Cain

[Thanda]

Therefore, just as with Nephi, cannot the President of the Church “say that God shall smite this people” and it should come to pass if it be the Lord’s will? (Helaman 10:10)

Even though it was Nephi's idea to replace the Nephite war with a famine (Helaman 11:4-5), does that make Nephi's request any less revelatory or any less of God's will?

Those who know God’s will and are committed to aligning their will to His can make requests of the Lord, through His Holy Priesthood, of which He can “approve” and make it His will, for the voices of His servants can be the same as His voice (D&C 1:38)

One must be careful of this kind of comparison. The priesthood as well as its rights, responsibilities and powers is almost always greater than those who hold it. It is likely very few (Christ definitely; Enoch, Adam and a few others perhaps perhaps) who ever fully measured up to it.

Furthermore it is not certain that the sealing power received by Nephi is the same sealing power we speak of in the Church. Certainly there are hundreds of people currently in the church who hold what we now call the sealing power who would scarce claim they would never do anything contrary to the will of the Lord.

The sealing power given today is more an administrative power (that is, to administer ordinances with eternal consequence) than a strictly spiritual power as was Nephi's. We have no recorded of Nephi using his power to conduct wedding ceremonies. His power was spiritual - the Lord declared him to be a man who would not ask anything contrary to his will and committed to uphold anything he ever asked in his name.

On the other hand Brigham Young obtained the sealing power (such as it was) by virtue of ascending to the position Joseph had left behind. It was not on account of him being a man who would never ask anything contrary to God's will.
And just to show that I'm not just giving Brigham a hard time, even Joseph Smith's reception of the keys of the Priesthood was more on account of those keys being necessary for the organisation rather than because he earned those keys. In other words it wasn't about him but about the work which needed to be done and he was but the vessel through whom God determined to return those keys to the earth. Contrast this with Nephi's sealing power which does not appear to have actually been needed on the earth and appears to be a personal gift to him as a result of his righteousness.

4.) At least two First Presidencies claimed that the Priesthood ban was a commandment from the Lord.

August 17, 1949

“It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.”

“December 15, 1969

“From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.”

“Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.”

“We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.”

You can read both of the statements in full here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

- A direct commandment but no record of it?

- Where is the record of this teaching of Joseph Smith that blacks could not receive the priesthood? And why did he contradict his own beliefs by extending the priesthood to blacks?

- Concerning Mckay's words, we are still left to wonder about the period and nature of this revelation to Brigham Young (let it be also noted that it was Brigham Young who declared it alone and not the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency; also note that though referenced the name of the Lord it was not at in a Church forum but in a government meeting where his capacity was governor - not Prophet).

Does this mean that no one else can have the Priesthood but the descendants of Seth?

No. That is not what it means. It simply means that no one else has the “right” to it. For example, if I deny someone access to my home, they cannot claim that I am denying them of their “rights” because they have no “right” to enter into my home.

So, anyone can receive the Priesthood, based on the criteria set by the Lord, but He can also deny people access to the Priesthood simply based on the fact that they did not have a “right” to it in the first place.

This explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny - the twelve tribes of Israel (all of them) were descendants of Seth. Yet they clearly did not all hold the priesthood. In fact, for a very long period of time, only a diminished version of the priesthood was available to them - and not even to all of them, just the sons of Aaron. Clearly the Lord can deny the priesthood to anyone - even those who have "rights".

No, the true principle of the priesthood has never been about rights but about worthiness.

End of Part 2 of 3

 

[Thanda]

The idea that only certain lineages have access to certain blessings at certain times is found in the scriptures many times.

How or why the Lord decided to place certain of His children into the “chosen seed” or not is not known. However, what is known is that the actions we performed in our pre-mortal life can affect us in this mortal life.

Just how they who were “noble and great” among the spirits that dwelt with God were chosen to receive blessings, like being His “rulers” (Abraham 3:22-23), that would also mean that there were also “less noble and great” or “not at all noble and great” that may have been denied the “right” to certain blessings in this life.

All that we are and receive is based on what we do. We all have the same opportunity. If we decide to apply ourselves and excel we are blessed more. It is upon our faithfulness that the Lord adds to or takes away blessings from us.

It is just as Alma explained about those who were called to be priests according to the “foreknowledge of God”,

“And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.” (Alma 13:3-9)

We now come to the crux of the matter. Were black people who died before 1978 less noble and great than their non-black counter-parts? Did God use that period to empty heaven of those less noble and great beings by ensuring they were born with as black people?

Clearly, Prestor John, the less noble and great beings can be found in every race, in every land, political party, hair color, gender etc. Likewise one can find the noble and great ones in every culture and age of the world. I think specifically of a man like Sir Thomas More (who clearly wasn't foreordained to hold the priesthood in this world). But generally I think of the words of Alma in Chapter 29 of his book:

"For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."​

My understanding of this is that the noble and great ones have been distributed all over the world and in every age (apostasy or no) in order to help all of God's less noble and great children to come nearer to him. It is my belief that in doing so God has not worried himself too much with ensuring that every noble and great person must receive the priesthood. For the scripture says "these I will make my rulers". It does not say "these I will make my priesthood holders".

As regards Alma's dissertation on High Priests - again one must be careful direct comparisons. In the church today there are thousands of high priests - they are a dime a dozen. Clearly when he spoke of people whose garments had been "washed white in the blood of the lamb" and who "could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence" he was not talking about your average modern day high priest. He was talking about people who had been called as prophets in their day. The Noahs, Seths, Abrahams, Moses of their day.

6.) The portion of the remnant of Cain’s descendants that survived the Flood were cursed “as pertaining to the Priesthood” which is clarified to mean that they became the “lineage by which [they] could not have the right of Priesthood” (Abraham 1:21-27).

Again, it is clear that they could receive the Priesthood, based upon their worthiness and the will of the Lord, yet they simply had no “right” to it. They had not be foreordained to receive it.

Again I assert that no one has a right to the priesthood. It has always been based on worthiness.

And I would also say the the children of ham are the descendants of Seth rather than of Cain since the priesthood is patriarchal (passed from father to son) and has nothing to do with mothers or daughters.

7.) The Church has been clear that all past attempts to explain or justify the Priesthood ban were never the official doctrines of the Church.

I did not mention any of this stuff in an attempt to support any of those past explanations or justifications.

I just don’t think that Brigham Young being wrong about why the ban was put in place changes the fact that the ban was received by revelation.

The problem, Prestor John, is that Brigham Young did not say he is banning black people, or people of African descent from receiving the priesthood. He said his banning those who are the seed of Cain. From that point onward he was in a bind; for now the ban has been declared but the explanation must be given of what is meant by the term "seed of Cain". And the explanation came that the seed of Cain were people of African descent (specifically black people). Thus the term "seed of Cain" is not just an explanation of the policy but in fact it is a central element of the policy as first revealed by him. And so if he received the policy by revelation then one can only assume that God himself named black people the seed of Cain. And if so then it is clear that it was on account of them being the seed of Cain that they were banned from the priesthood. Again this would mean the seed of Cain is not an explanation of the policy but is practically the policy itself.

A President of the Church cannot enact a Church-wide policy without the unanimous support of other General Authorities. A revealed doctrine or policy does not need to be included in the Standard Works as a detailed word for word revelation in order to be a revelation. The Lord approves of the actions of the President of the Church as long as it is according to His will. The Brethren have claimed that the ban was revelation on several occasions. The ban could not be lifted without further revelation. The scriptures clearly teach that not everyone has the “right” to the Priesthood, so denying someone the Priesthood does not necessarily deny them of any “right”.

Unanimity does not equal revelation.

Why was the unbanning included in the standard works but not the ban itself? At the very least why wasn't the policy announced by the united voice of the first presidency and the twelve apostles in an appropriate forum rather than through one man (albeit that man is the president of the Church) in a state legislature?

I see they have claimed it was revelation without ever feeling the need to recount the time and manner that revelation was received.

I agree that after the ban became fully practiced in the church, it could not be undone without revelation.

Finally the scriptures teach that no one has a right to the priesthood but that it is received by those who are called of God.

End of Part 3 of 3

 

[Katzpur]

I guess life is keeping us both very busy. Things have only just calmed down work-wise for me this side.

And don't worry this response seems sufficiently lengthy



It need not be so hard to believe. The brother of Jared (a man Brigham Young would probably admit had greater faith than himself) did not pray for two years (or something like that). Lehi lost faith in the Lord. Nathan allowed himself to be impressed by the appearance of the brother of David rather than looking upon the heart.
I could use many other examples but my point is there is no reason to find it difficult to believe that during a time when racial prejudice was seen as normal in America, that Brigham Young and other apostles held less than perfect ideas about people of African descent. That Joseph Smith apparently did not should not lead us to assume that all others were like him. He was after all "the best blood of his generation" and a man who "did more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it". And if that is true then it should not surprise us if, after he is gone, ideas that may not have been given any room to breath under his watch emerge after he is gone. For in the end the doctrines of the Lord can only be kept as pure as those who are its guardians.



The issue crops up because by the time Brigham Young made the announcement the practice of recording important revelations that represented a major position of the church was already well established. So the only question I have is why such a major policy position of the church was not recorded and added to the doctrine and covenants as was done with Polygamy (both introducing it and discontinuing it) as well as, ironically, the removal on the ban.



I think at this point it is relevant to recite what I wrote before concerning the Lord's possible role in the ban.

Spoiler

So the only basis possible for excluding blacks from the priesthood is either direct revelation or prejudice.

I personally reconciled most of the information at my disposal to the following conclusion - the ban was the result of revelation (subtle perhaps) as a result of prejudice.

What does this mean? The Lord has a history of revoking blessings from his people or banning them from doing things which would bless them as a result of the hardness of hearts. E.g. The children of Israel were prevented from entering the promised land, the fullness of the gospel was taken from them and they received only a lessor law. In latter-days the law of consecration has been held back from the church because members are not yet ready to receive it and the reclaiming of Zion was pushed back for a similar reason.

I am also reminded of the debate in the early church about extending the gospel to gentiles. Jesus is recorded to have told them while he was on earth that the gospel should go to all nations. But it required further revelation, a strong and inspirational sermon from Peter, and the manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost among gentiles to convince the people of the day to extend the blessings they had received to their non-Jewish brothers and sisters.

With all this in mind it seems uncontroversial to say that human prejudice can play a large role in how the affairs of even God's true church are conducted. And it further seems clear that God displays the ability to exercise patience with his people in getting them to incorporate true principles in their lives. In fact from a church perspective God seems be able to wait for generations for the right moment to implement true principles. It is also clear that through the hardness of our hearts God may sometimes be led to make decrees that force us to live in less than ideal ways. (As with the law of Moses).

This leads to the conclusion that either black people displayed a hardness of heart when they received the gospel (as muslims generally do - specifically the lives of converts are often threatened) that led God to institute a temporary ban or the white members of the church held prejudices against their black brethren as was the fashion of the time and could not look at their brethren as equals and as worthy of the same blessings both in this life and the next as themselves.
I would venture to say it seems clear there is more evidence for the latter than the former.

And if it is so then it may be that the ban was introduced by the Lord to save black people from the shame they were suffering within his church and as a chastisement to his church for the hardness of their hearts (as with the Law of consecration). And it is therefore no coincidence that the revelation to lift the ban came during the time when the tide of national (in the US) opinion was turning and the critical mass of the American people (of which LDS members were a part) viewed blacks as their equals and as deserving of the same rights. (It is also relevant to note the number of members who left the church when the lifting of the ban was announced).

The basic message of the above is that Black people's exclusion from the Church (assuming it was by revelation) may not have been because of any deficiencies they possessed but because of deficiencies possessed by their white brothers and sisters who could not see them the way God saw them.

End of Part 1 of 3

I'm just going to add one quick thought here that I suspect you might appreciate: I've mentioned Darius Gray, one of my heroes. Another thing he said in the speech he gave that I quoted from was, "Being black is not a curse, but a calling." I love seeing people magnify their calling! What remarkable insights, Thanda! I'm genuinely impressed. Good job!

 

[Thanda]

I'm just going to add one quick thought here that I suspect you might appreciate: I've mentioned Darius Gray, one of my heroes. Another thing he said in the speech he gave that I quoted from was, "Being black is not a curse, but a calling." I love seeing people magnify their calling! What remarkable insights, Thanda! I'm genuinely impressed. Good job!

Thanks Katzpur!

 

[Prestor John]

I guess life is keeping us both very busy. Things have only just calmed down work-wise for me this side.

And don't worry this response seems sufficiently lengthy



It need not be so hard to believe. The brother of Jared (a man Brigham Young would probably admit had greater faith than himself) did not pray for two years (or something like that). Lehi lost faith in the Lord. Nathan allowed himself to be impressed by the appearance of the brother of David rather than looking upon the heart.
I could use many other examples but my point is there is no reason to find it difficult to believe that during a time when racial prejudice was seen as normal in America, that Brigham Young and other apostles held less than perfect ideas about people of African descent. That Joseph Smith apparently did not should not lead us to assume that all others were like him. He was after all "the best blood of his generation" and a man who "did more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it". And if that is true then it should not surprise us if, after he is gone, ideas that may not have been given any room to breath under his watch emerge after he is gone. For in the end the doctrines of the Lord can only be kept as pure as those who are its guardians.



The issue crops up because by the time Brigham Young made the announcement the practice of recording important revelations that represented a major position of the church was already well established. So the only question I have is why such a major policy position of the church was not recorded and added to the doctrine and covenants as was done with Polygamy (both introducing it and discontinuing it) as well as, ironically, the removal on the ban.



I think at this point it is relevant to recite what I wrote before concerning the Lord's possible role in the ban.

Spoiler

So the only basis possible for excluding blacks from the priesthood is either direct revelation or prejudice.

I personally reconciled most of the information at my disposal to the following conclusion - the ban was the result of revelation (subtle perhaps) as a result of prejudice.

What does this mean? The Lord has a history of revoking blessings from his people or banning them from doing things which would bless them as a result of the hardness of hearts. E.g. The children of Israel were prevented from entering the promised land, the fullness of the gospel was taken from them and they received only a lessor law. In latter-days the law of consecration has been held back from the church because members are not yet ready to receive it and the reclaiming of Zion was pushed back for a similar reason.

I am also reminded of the debate in the early church about extending the gospel to gentiles. Jesus is recorded to have told them while he was on earth that the gospel should go to all nations. But it required further revelation, a strong and inspirational sermon from Peter, and the manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost among gentiles to convince the people of the day to extend the blessings they had received to their non-Jewish brothers and sisters.

With all this in mind it seems uncontroversial to say that human prejudice can play a large role in how the affairs of even God's true church are conducted. And it further seems clear that God displays the ability to exercise patience with his people in getting them to incorporate true principles in their lives. In fact from a church perspective God seems be able to wait for generations for the right moment to implement true principles. It is also clear that through the hardness of our hearts God may sometimes be led to make decrees that force us to live in less than ideal ways. (As with the law of Moses).

This leads to the conclusion that either black people displayed a hardness of heart when they received the gospel (as muslims generally do - specifically the lives of converts are often threatened) that led God to institute a temporary ban or the white members of the church held prejudices against their black brethren as was the fashion of the time and could not look at their brethren as equals and as worthy of the same blessings both in this life and the next as themselves.
I would venture to say it seems clear there is more evidence for the latter than the former.

And if it is so then it may be that the ban was introduced by the Lord to save black people from the shame they were suffering within his church and as a chastisement to his church for the hardness of their hearts (as with the Law of consecration). And it is therefore no coincidence that the revelation to lift the ban came during the time when the tide of national (in the US) opinion was turning and the critical mass of the American people (of which LDS members were a part) viewed blacks as their equals and as deserving of the same rights. (It is also relevant to note the number of members who left the church when the lifting of the ban was announced).

The basic message of the above is that Black people's exclusion from the Church (assuming it was by revelation) may not have been because of any deficiencies they possessed but because of deficiencies possessed by their white brothers and sisters who could not see them the way God saw them.

End of Part 1 of 3

 

[Prestor John]

I used to actually have some free time at work to write these things, but there have been so many Haitian refugees flooding the southern border that I have no time to myself anymore! T.T

So, I am only going to focus on one “main point” at a time. Not more extra long posts that may or may not cover everything.

It need not be so hard to believe. The brother of Jared (a man Brigham Young would probably admit had greater faith than himself) did not pray for two years (or something like that). Lehi lost faith in the Lord. Nathan allowed himself to be impressed by the appearance of the brother of David rather than looking upon the heart.

I don’t feel that you have provided accurate comparisons.

In order to enact the Priesthood ban, President Young had to convince a dozen other Apostles and Prophets to agree with him.

If President Young had a personal failing, like the men you mentioned above, that is one thing, but to somehow exploit the personal failings of many other seers and revelators?

I’m sorry, I just don’t see that happening unless the Church actually has no part or portion of the Spirit of God and it is not guided by actual revelation.

I could use many other examples but my point is there is no reason to find it difficult to believe that during a time when racial prejudice was seen as normal in America, that Brigham Young and other apostles held less than perfect ideas about people of African descent.

I am not saying that they were not products of their time, but if they had issues with race, then why just those of African descent?

I’m no historian, but I’m pretty sure that American history is plagued with prejudice of all kinds of different people of different cultures and skin colors.

Why didn’t the Priesthood ban include all of those other people that I’m sure President Young and other red-blooded Americans disliked?

The ban was directed only at black people of African descent.

The narrowness, or exactness, of the ban when there was a plethora of hate and bigotry going around in all directions against all sorts of people (even other “whites”) makes me feel that there was something more behind the ban than simple cultural racism.

That Joseph Smith apparently did not should not lead us to assume that all others were like him.

Joseph Smith kept polygamy a secret for years (even from his first wife Emma) and even had young women sealed to him.

Was his keeping it a secret a commandment from the Lord? Was that commandment recorded? Why didn't the Prophet record any of his revelations about plural marriage until 1843, many years after he supposedly received the revelation and began practicing plural marriage?

Are you about to accuse him of being a philanderer or a pedophile?

Do you have an issue with the Prophet practicing plural marriage before the revelation was recorded?

Does the fact that the Prophet later included revelations about polygamy (after the fact) really even change anything?

He was after all "the best blood of his generation" and a man who "did more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it".

Yes, he was not perfect. He made mistakes. He had personal failings. But he never implemented world-wide policies that enforced his personal failings, because that is not something true prophets do.

And if that is true then it should not surprise us if, after he is gone, ideas that may not have been given any room to breath under his watch emerge after he is gone.

I understand this. Doesn’t the Church record this very thing happening? Isn’t also the premise of a Great Apostasy based on this idea?

However, the Lord has prepared us in these latter-day to avoid these type of failings by counseling us to side with the majority of the Twelve.

Since President Young could not enact a Church-wide policy without the unanimous consent of the General Authorities, don’t we know how the “majority” felt about the ban?

For in the end the doctrines of the Lord can only be kept as pure as those who are its guardians.

Are you advocating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints fell into a period of Apostasy from approximately 1852-1978?

 

[Prestor John]

I'm just going to add one quick thought here that I suspect you might appreciate: I've mentioned Darius Gray, one of my heroes. Another thing he said in the speech he gave that I quoted from was, "Being black is not a curse, but a calling." I love seeing people magnify their calling! What remarkable insights, Thanda! I'm genuinely impressed. Good job!

That is a unique and great way to put it.

 

[Thanda]

I don’t feel that you have provided accurate comparisons.

In order to enact the Priesthood ban, President Young had to convince a dozen other Apostles and Prophets to agree with him.

If President Young had a personal failing, like the men you mentioned above, that is one thing, but to somehow exploit the personal failings of many other seers and revelators?

I’m sorry, I just don’t see that happening unless the Church actually has no part or portion of the Spirit of God and it is not guided by actual revelation.

As I said, I have come to understand that, in dealing both with individuals and with the church, the Lord takes a far more flexible approach than we might at first believe possible.

I am not saying that they were not products of their time, but if they had issues with race, then why just those of African descent?

I’m no historian, but I’m pretty sure that American history is plagued with prejudice of all kinds of different people of different cultures and skin colors.

Why didn’t the Priesthood ban include all of those other people that I’m sure President Young and other red-blooded Americans disliked?

The ban was directed only at black people of African descent.

The narrowness, or exactness, of the ban when there was a plethora of hate and bigotry going around in all directions against all sorts of people (even other “whites”) makes me feel that there was something more behind the ban than simple cultural racism.

You don't need to be a historian to know that blacks (all of whom came from Africa) were the only people who were subjected to slavery and whose full status as human beings was questioned.

Let's not beat about the bush, blacks were the target of a particular kind of prejudice.

Joseph Smith kept polygamy a secret for years (even from his first wife Emma) and even had young women sealed to him.

Was his keeping it a secret a commandment from the Lord? Was that commandment recorded? Why didn't the Prophet record any of his revelations about plural marriage until 1843, many years after he supposedly received the revelation and began practicing plural marriage?

Are you about to accuse him of being a philanderer or a pedophile?

Do you have an issue with the Prophet practicing plural marriage before the revelation was recorded?

Does the fact that the Prophet later included revelations about polygamy (after the fact) really even change anything?

What is in question is not when the commandment or revelation is recorded. What is in question is whether there actually was a commandment or revelation given. Therefore w.r.t to plural marriage it was a case of better late than never. Joseph Smith did produce the revelation and commandment authorizing plural marriage.

On the other hand we have nothing from Brigham Young or from any of those who say there was a commandment or revelation. In fact, after Brigham Young's announcement in the state legislature (I stand to be corrected) there was never any other official announcement from his First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve affirming his proclamation as the will and mind of the Lord. Only decades after his death (and the death of many (if not all) of his fellow prophets, seers and revelators) do we get official statements from the Church that it was revelation and even then they do not offer any details about that revelation.

Furthermore we have Wilford Woodruff (an avid historian of the Church) failing to record the revelation or the meeting between the apostles in which the revelation was received.

Unfortunately, Prestor John, the odds are heavily stacked against there ever having been a revelation received regarding the blacks and the priesthood.

Yes, he was not perfect. He made mistakes. He had personal failings. But he never implemented world-wide policies that enforced his personal failings, because that is not something true prophets do.

Racism against black people was hardly just a personal prejudice of Brigham Young or of some few people in the Church. It was likely widely pervasive in the Church. This is why Brigham Young's declaration was met with such little opposition (contrast this with the reaction to Joseph Smith's declaration of the law of plural marriage).

I understand this. Doesn’t the Church record this very thing happening? Isn’t also the premise of a Great Apostasy based on this idea?

However, the Lord has prepared us in these latter-day to avoid these type of failings by counseling us to side with the majority of the Twelve.

Since President Young could not enact a Church-wide policy without the unanimous consent of the General Authorities, don’t we know how the “majority” felt about the ban?

Things are not either black or white. We are not either in an Apostasy or in a state of perfect knowledge and understanding. There are degrees to everything. The degree to which the people live the gospel partly depends on the caliber of their leaders.

W.r.t your last paragraph - Firstly note that if the prejudice against black people was wide-spread we should not be surprised to find the majority of the General Authorities consenting to its implementation. Also, since the ban was more a policy than a doctrinal change (as you have emphasised) they may not have held the declaration it to as high a standard as they might have if Brigham had declared reincarnation as part of the Gospel. E.g. if the Prophet says he feels they should open up a mission in some heretofore unexplored (by the Church) country, I'm sure few would ask him the details of when and how he received this revelation. It is just a small policy change and it is consistent with the church's stated goal of bringing the gospel to all the world.

Likewise therefore if the prejudice during the time of Brigham was such that slavery was countenanced - and considering all the scriptural justifications that existed at the time - it may have seemed logical and natural to many of the General Authorities for blacks to be further denied equality with their white counterparts through denial of the priesthood. This might have led to them being less questioning of the declaration to the point that no one (as far as we know) even thought to ask Brigham about the details of the revelation.

Lastly we have no record of the general authorities of the time giving their unanimous support for the declaration - we only assume it because we know of no one who opposed it.

Are you advocating that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints fell into a period of Apostasy from approximately 1852-1978?

As I said above, not everything either black or white. Just because the church has never fallen into apostasy does not mean everything the church has done has been pleasing to the Lord. He is as patient with the Church as he is with all of us individually - E.g. he is still waiting for the Church to be ready to live the law of consecration.

 

[Prestor John]

Before I begin I just want to reiterate that even though I may say “harsh” things, I am not trying to be inflammatory or rude. I’m just calling things as I see them.

I also want to make it clear that I am not trying in any way, shape or form to imply that your faithfulness or standing in the Church is in question. I am just arguing point-for-point and I hope after our scuffle that we can smile and shake hands.

As I said, I have come to understand that, in dealing both with individuals and with the church, the Lord takes a far more flexible approach than we might at first believe possible.

I agree with this to an extent, but, unfortunately, I feel that this is a rather hypocritical viewpoint for you to have on this subject.

On the one hand you claim that the Priesthood ban could absolutely not be revelatory since it did not follow a specific process, like being written down in the Standard Works or in an official statement (even though there is no such requirement recorded in the Standard Works or official statement that I know of).

Then on the other hand you claim that the Lord is more flexible than we would commonly believe with His Church.

If the Lord is truly flexible when it comes to the governance of His organized Church and Kingdom upon the Earth, according to your opinion, then is it not likely that He would also be just as flexible concerning what is or is not revelation?

Would a flexible Lord require all revelations to first be written in order to be considered such by His saints? Does a pen receive revelation or a prophet of God?

Why do you consider the Lord to be flexible when it suits your argument, yet completely rigid when it supposedly hinders mine?

Also, if He is so flexible, why did He reveal D&C 107 which gives specific instruction on how the quorums that comprise the General Authorities of the Church should come to “every decision” and that is by a “unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other.” (verse 27)

The Lord continued by saying that if they cannot achieve a “unanimous voice” (or a majority if a “unanimous voice” is impossible to achieve i.e. if members of the Quorum are unable to assemble) then “their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently.” (verse 29)

He then went on to say that all the decisions made by these Quorums “are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long-suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity” (verse 30).

And if any decision made by these Quorums is “made in unrighteousness”, like for racist or bigoted reasons (just some random non-specific examples) then “it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church” (verse 32).

These sound like rather rigid instructions given by a God who is very specific and rigid when it comes to the organization of His Church and Kingdom to me.

I don’t believe the Priesthood ban has ever been brought before a “general assembly”. I could be wrong though. I tried to look up if there had ever been one and didn’t find anything. If the ban has never been brought before a “general assembly”, then that means over a century’s worth of prophets, seers, and revelators never felt that the Priesthood ban was implemented in “unrighteousness” which would include racist or bigoted reasons.

Those are just the same nonspecific examples, of course.

I agree that the Lord can be “flexible” to an extent, especially with His children on an individual basis. But my study of the scriptures causes me to draw the line at world-wide policies for His Church and Kingdom upon the Earth implemented by over a dozen prophets, seers and revelators and sustained for over a century by many more prophets, seers and revelators.

You don't need to be a historian to know that blacks (all of whom came from Africa) were the only people who were subjected to slavery and whose full status as human beings was questioned.

That is not historically accurate.

Many people of varying races were subjected to slavery in North America both before and after the U.S. received their independence. This would include various “White” races (like the Irish), Native Americans, Chinese, Hispanics and others. They were not granted the same fundamental rights as “free Whites”.

Some have claimed that there have even been more White people enslaved throughout the history of the Americas than Black people.

Also, who was or was not a slave is beside the point. The point is mainstream mid-19th century America had cultural prejudices against LOTS of different people, not just black Africans. That is just fact. That is history.

So it leads me to ask again, why were only black Africans banned from holding the Priesthood and participating in certain Temple ordinances?

Let's not beat about the bush, blacks were the target of a particular kind of prejudice.

I think you are the one actually trying to avoid the truth that lots of people were targets of prejudice in mid-19th century America, not just black Africans.

To brush aside the truth about what happened to these people back in those days does them a disservice and it is not honest.

What is in question is not when the commandment or revelation is recorded.

You are right because that does not matter.

Revelation does not need to be recorded in order to be considered revelation.

What is in question is whether there actually was a commandment or revelation given.

Why is that?

I supplied two First Presidency statements that claimed that there was a commandment and revelation given.

Do you believe those men to be liars or well-meaning false prophets?

Therefore w.r.t to plural marriage it was a case of better late than never.

So you would have severely criticized the Prophet for practicing plural marriage before he wrote it down as revelation? Claimed that he was a philanderer? Pedophile? Left the Church?

Didn’t the Lord consider His commandment to the Prophet to practice plural marriage to be in effect even before it was written down?

Didn’t He send multiple angels to the Prophet commanding him to start the practice and even threatened him with destruction if he did not?

All that was done before any of it was written down.

Revelation from the Lord is not bound by what is written.

Part 1 of 3

 

[Prestor John]

Joseph Smith did produce the revelation and commandment authorizing plural marriage.

Moses received and wrote the Book of Genesis several centuries after the events recorded in that book supposedly took place.

Does that mean Adam and Eve did not really exist until Moses wrote about them?

There was no Flood? Noah didn’t really build the Ark? No Tower of Babel? Are all these just stories?

Prophets can receive and sustain past revelation even if there is no written record of that revelation.

The Prophet Joseph Smith did this very thing with the Book of Moses. There was no written record of that revelation, but he received it and wrote it down.

Also, don’t the scriptures mention a few times that certain things could not be written or recorded? Prophets were commanded to not write of certain things?

On the other hand we have nothing from Brigham Young or from any of those who say there was a commandment or revelation.

Except those two First Presidency statements I referenced.

In fact, after Brigham Young's announcement in the state legislature (I stand to be corrected) there was never any other official announcement from his First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve affirming his proclamation as the will and mind of the Lord.

It is just as Scott mentioned in one of his posts on this thread. No one knows when the ban was first implemented. So, you cannot claim that that was when President Young implemented the ban. He only mentioned it and shared his opinion on it. We don’t know when it was implemented.

From what I understand from my reading of D&C 107, it seems that all that is needed for a Quorum to make a decision (like the First Presidency and the Twelve) is that they must have a “unanimous voice” (or a majority as mentioned earlier), but I did not see any need mentioned by the Lord that any official statement be made in order for the Quorum to act on their decision.

I could be wrong though.

However, as I also mentioned earlier, just as the prophet Moses receiving and writing down the revelation of the Book of Genesis validated the truthfulness of Adam and Eve, Noah, the Flood etc, even though he had no written record of those events - the two First Presidency statements I referenced before (where they claimed that the ban had been a direct commandment from the Lord and that it had been revelation) should also validate that the ban had been revelation received from the Lord.

Prophets and seers can receive and sustain past revelation.

I believe them because I believe that they were true prophets, seers and revelators.

Only decades after his death (and the death of many (if not all) of his fellow prophets, seers and revelators) do we get official statements from the Church that it was revelation and even then they do not offer any details about that revelation.

So?

Furthermore we have Wilford Woodruff (an avid historian of the Church) failing to record the revelation or the meeting between the apostles in which the revelation was received.

The Bible does not record that the Lord Jesus Christ visited the Lehites in ancient America after His Resurrection.

Does that mean it didn’t happen?

Unfortunately, Prestor John, the odds are heavily stacked against there ever having been a revelation received regarding the blacks and the priesthood.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I have seen you argue your opinion and assumptions while I have shared from the Standard Works and official First Presidency messages.

Racism against black people was hardly just a personal prejudice of Brigham Young or of some few people in the Church. It was likely widely pervasive in the Church.

Can you supply evidence of this assumption?

The Standard Works record God denying different people certain blessings from time to time.

For many centuries only literal descendants of Levi or Aaron could hold the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthoods in ancient Israel.

Does this make God racist?

This is why Brigham Young's declaration was met with such little opposition (contrast this with the reaction to Joseph Smith's declaration of the law of plural marriage).

I don’t find this to be a valid comparison.

The idea of plural marriage tended to outrage the unknowledged members of the Church (and non-members) because marriage leads to S-E-X, which obviously leads people to think about very serious and damning sexual sins such as fornication and adultery.

However, denying a small percentage of the membership of the Church the opportunity to perform or participate in certain ordinances in the Church during this life, while at the same time not denying any of them the opportunities of salvation and exaltation, only for a temporary amount of time (as promised by President Young and all other Presidents of the Church that spoke on the matter) is rather insignificant in comparison.

One had the potential to damn a soul, while the other was only a temporary hindrance to a very small percentage of Church members.

Racism is not always the culprit.

Again, even though only descendants of Levi and Aaron could officiate in the Priesthood, all of Israel was offered salvation through personal faithfulness and worthiness.

Things are not either black or white. We are not either in an Apostasy or in a state of perfect knowledge and understanding. There are degrees to everything. The degree to which the people live the gospel partly depends on the caliber of their leaders.

Agreed.

So what you are saying is that you believe that Brigham Young, his counselors and all other General Authorities during his tenure as President of the Church and also all subsequent Presidents of the Church and their counselors and General Authorities of the Church from 1852-1978 were of “low caliber” - therefore all those racist brainwashed members of the Church, who did not think for themselves, blindly followed the dictates of those “low caliber” men, thus becoming “low caliber” themselves?

That sounds like a real rocky MAJORITY OF HISTORY for the Lord’s one true Church in these last times.

Part 2 of 3

 

[Prestor John]

W.r.t your last paragraph - Firstly note that if the prejudice against black people was wide-spread we should not be surprised to find the majority of the General Authorities consenting to its implementation.

I vehemently disagree.

I believe this Church was organized by the Lord Jesus Christ and He directs the affairs of His Kingdom.

Am I saying that I believe that the leaders of the Church are infallible or can never be wrong?

No. I am not saying that. They can and have made mistakes. For example, I do not accept most of the theories postulated by President Young and others in their attempts to justify the ban.

They may have personal failings and make personal mistakes, but when they are acting under the authority given them by the Lord Jesus Christ?

A world-wide policy that lasted for well over a century and sustained by dozens and dozens of different prophets, seers and revelators?

That sounds farfetched to me.

Also, since the ban was more a policy than a doctrinal change (as you have emphasised) they may not have held the declaration it to as high a standard as they might have if Brigham had declared reincarnation as part of the Gospel. E.g. if the Prophet says he feels they should open up a mission in some heretofore unexplored (by the Church) country, I'm sure few would ask him the details of when and how he received this revelation.

Who said they didn’t? Who said that President Young did not sit down with all General Authorities and hashed this thing out?

According to D&C 107, he would have had to. It not being recorded does not mean it did not happen.

Also, there is nothing stopping the Lord from directing His Church through policy as well as doctrine. Why can’t a policy also be revelatory?

It is just a small policy change and it is consistent with the church stated goal of bringing the gospel to all the world.

We don’t have every word spoken between the General Authorities recorded in our Standard Works or official statements.

The thing about living revelation is that it is actually like a living thing and cannot always be bound and written in stone.

Maybe they didn’t want to make an official statement about the ban because they knew how that would affect the more “fanatical” members of the Church who begin to value what is written more than what their leaders say.

Like you said, many members left the Church after the ban was lifted. They were so set in their ways and in their ideals that they forgot that the Lord is alive and that He is not bound by everything that has been revealed.

I believe that many more members would have left the Church after the lifting of the ban if it had been written in our Standard Works or official statement.

Besides, the ban was always meant to be temporary. Why set it up like a solid and lasting principle when it was not?

Likewise therefore if the prejudice during the time of Brigham was such that slavery was countenanced - and considering all the scriptural justifications that existed at the time - it may have seemed logical and natural to many of the General Authorities for blacks to be further denied equality with their which counterparts through denial of the priesthood.

Not if they valued the life and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

He gave the Priesthood to worthy black African men. He purchased the freedom of enslaved black men. He taught that it was not right that a man should be in bondage to another.

Not to mention the life and teachings of their Savior and Redeemer.

This might have led to them being less questioning of the declaration to the point that no one (as far as we know) even thought to ask Brigham about the details of the revelation.

That idea will remain uncontested because we have no record of anyone questioning it that I know of.

However, it is still just as likely that they did not question it because they knew that Brigham Young was a prophet of the Lord and that what he said was the will of the Lord because the Spirit of the Lord testified to their minds and hearts that it was true.

Lastly we have no record of the general authorities of the time giving their unanimous support for the declaration - we only assume it because we know of no one who opposed it.

That doesn’t really matter. “Actions speak louder than words.”

Unless they threw D&C 107 out the window, it is likely that there was a “unanimous voice”.

Besides, there is no requirement that I know of that a revelation needs to be recorded in order to be revelation.

As I said above, not everything either black or white. Just because the church has never fallen into apostasy does not mean everything the church has done has been pleasing to the Lord. He is as patient with the Church as he is with all of us individually - E.g. he is still waiting for the Church to be ready to live the law of consecration.

I believe that that idea has merit. The Church may not have been ready.

It is also just as likely that the country was not ready. One of the reasons that the Prophet kept the practice of plural marriage secret for so long was because he didn’t want it inciting more violence against the Church.

Perhaps banning black Africans helped the Church avoid even more fevered persecution?

The implementation of the ban could also have been a test for the Church or for people of color in the Church.

Whatever the reasons were, all we really do know is that we don’t know the reasons for why the ban was implemented.

That does not mean that Brigham Young was especially racist or that the ban was not received by revelation.

Part 3 of 3

 

[Watchmen]

Are you kidding? The church withheld the priesthood from blacks because the church would be persecuted more? Sorry, but the church was behind the times. It took about 10 years after the Civil Rights Act before the church corrected it's priesthood discrimination.

 

[Katzpur]

A world-wide policy that lasted for well over a century and sustained by dozens and dozens of different prophets, seers and revelators?

That sounds farfetched to me.

Apparently only to you, though.

 

[Prestor John]

Are you kidding? The church withheld the priesthood from blacks because the church would be persecuted more?

When Alma and his followers were threatened with death by Amulon and the other false priests of Noah if they prayed, they stopped praying vocally and instead offered up prayers in their minds and hearts.

One of the reasons the Prophet Joseph Smith kept his practice of plural marriage a secret was to avoid more persecution.

I never said that that was the one and only reason for the ban or that I even believed it to be a reason. Since we do not know how, why or when the ban was implemented, any reason, or combination of reasons, are as good as any.

Sorry, but the church was behind the times.

If you took the time to read the First Presidency message I referenced from December 15, 1969 you would have seen how "with the times" the Church actually was,

"In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights."

It took about 10 years after the Civil Rights Act before the church corrected it's priesthood discrimination.

Obviously public opinion is not the motivating factor of the Lord's Church. In the same First Presidency message it reads,

"Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established."

 

[Prestor John]

Apparently only to you, though.

That is neither accurate nor honest.

 

[Katzpur]

That is neither accurate nor honest.

What I meant by that is that it seems as if your position is opposite from everybody else who is debating this question on this thread. I'm sure there are other Mormons who feel as you do, but all of us here seem to be in agreement that the priesthood ban was not given by God but imposed by men who, despite their apostolic calling, were mere human beings who, in this case, made an error in judgment.

 

[Prestor John]

What I meant by that is that it seems as if your position is opposite from everybody else who is debating this question on this thread. I'm sure there are other Mormons who feel as you do, but all of us here seem to be in agreement that the priesthood ban was not given by God but imposed by men who, despite their apostolic calling, were mere human beings who, in this case, made an error in judgment.

In that case I completely agree with you, yet I still have to point that that fact is irrelevant. As I quoted the First Presidency saying earlier, popular opinion does not dictate God's will.

I would also like to point out that during this discussion I was the only one who quoted from the Standard Works and official First Presidency statements in support of my position. That is a very telling fact that no one can deny.

It is also important to note that we all have a right to our opinions, but ultimately the Church has declared that no one knows "precisely' when, why or how the ban was first implemented, so all of our blather is simply...blather.

On a more personal note, I really do not like the position that you and others are taking. I do not feel that it is logical in any shape, way or form.

The idea that a single President of the Church could manipulate all the other General Authorities of his time to follow a false teaching based on hatred by getting them to ignore the recorded instructions received from the Lord on how any quorum comes to a decision and all personal promptings of the Holy Spirit they may have received on the subject and also convincing more than a century's worth of other Prophets, Seers and Revelators to continue to sustain that same hateful false teaching makes absolutely no sense to me.

Not only do I believe that that idea makes no sense, but to continue to spread it abroad even when two separate First Presidencies claimed in official statements that the ban was received as revelation to a Prophet of God and that it could not be rescinded until they received further revelation....

I believe that anyone who can continue to spread this idea in the face of so many inconsistencies and opposing facts has entered into the realm of delusion. They are denying reality.

Not only do I have an issue with that idea, but I also take issue with the idea that racism is the culprit of any and all disparities between the "Whites" and other races. I do not believe that to be true and I feel that anyone who immediately jumps to racism to explain an outcome without first considering other relevant factors is naïve and ignorant.

That is just my two cents on the matter.

 

[Watchmen]

When Alma and his followers were threatened with death by Amulon and the other false priests of Noah if they prayed, they stopped praying vocally and instead offered up prayers in their minds and hearts.

One of the reasons the Prophet Joseph Smith kept his practice of plural marriage a secret was to avoid more persecution.

I never said that that was the one and only reason for the ban or that I even believed it to be a reason. Since we do not know how, why or when the ban was implemented, any reason, or combination of reasons, are as good as any.

If you took the time to read the First Presidency message I referenced from December 15, 1969 you would have seen how "with the times" the Church actually was,

"In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights."

Obviously public opinion is not the motivating factor of the Lord's Church. In the same First Presidency message it reads,

"Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established."

John, that's garbage. Right vs wrong isn't about populism or waiting for God. It's about doing the right thing now, and the Church failed. Apparently it didn't learn its lesson because it's made the same mistakes in the gay marriage issue.

 

[Prestor John]

John, that's garbage. Right vs wrong isn't about populism or waiting for God. It's about doing the right thing now, and the Church failed. Apparently it didn't learn its lesson because it's made the same mistakes in the gay marriage issue.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[Watchmen]

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I don't believe what's "right" and what's "wrong" is a matter of "opinion."