Mormon Fundamentalism: Blacks & the Priesthood

[Comprehend]

If you read carefully, it says nothing of doing away with the old law. There has been change, but only changes that are after something has been fulfilled.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil; 18 For verily I say unto you, one jot nor the tittle hath not passed away from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled. 19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled. 20 Therefore come unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my commandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." -3 Nephi 12:17-20

God does not contradict himself. God only fulfills his own laws.

I love it when somebody tells me to read carefully. :sarcastic

If you don't see the difference between the OT law and NT law then I can't help you much.


Time of Chist:
1. Gentiles not allowed to hear the gospel or join church.
2. God changes law and allows Gentiles in.

Latter days:
1. Blacks not allowed to hold the priesthood.
2. God changes law and allows blacks the priesthood.


Could you explain how the two situations are different and why the first change is legitimate but the second one isn't?

 

[Comprehend]

I consider the mouth of a prophet to be doctrine.

Is that a yes or a no?

You consider everything that comes out of the mouth of a prophet to be doctrine?

 

[Sthatting]

wrong, This is a clear example of God never asking man to do more than he can handle. it was not the Hebrew's will to have the ten commandments and the Mosaic Law, they couldn't even comply fully to that law. It was not mankind's will to receive the "Higher Law" from Jesus, it was once they were able to do the mosaic law that Jesus came and raised the bar higher, then Joseph came and set the bar even higher.

I think we agree on this point.

The Gospel is the same, not some "curse." there is a clear pattern that "curses" (as you have described it as a "curse") leave upon repentance.

The Gospel is saving ordinances, and... according to True to the Faith, "In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom." So, perhaps you are right on this.

However, Brigham Young, a PROPHET of God, says that Cain's offspring should not hold the blessings of the priesthood (they are more than welcome to have membership) in the Church, but they cannot hold the priesthood until Christ's second coming. That is a doctrine that Brigham Young taught. And it doesn't make sense to me when a prophet a few presidencies later revokes that doctrine. I would expect a church of God to be consistent. Not a rat race maze to find the right doctrines, etc.

and the law of celestial marriage if interpreted correctly does not say a man must have more than one wife to attain this glory.

That's for another thread. I wouldn't want to complicate things here by bringing something like that in.

How about this for black people holding the priesthood?
Matthew 10:

one of the Apostles was BLACK according to the Canaanite Theory.

Let me ask you this. How do you explain Brigham Young's teachings, people who have testified of Joseph Smith's teaching regarding blacks not being able to hold the priesthood, or John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, etc., etc., etc.?

I'd like to hear your thoughts as to why Matthew 10 would say one thing, and Brigham Young, a PROPHET OF GOD, would say something completely different. You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God, correct?

"thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off for pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away." -Brigham Young

The Lord said this to Brigham Young. Then Brigham Young teaches that it wouldn't happen until the second coming of Jesus Christ. He was a prophet of God. You think he'd know something when the Lord tells him things and he teaches them. :shout

 

[Sthatting]

Is that a yes or a no?

You consider everything that comes out of the mouth of a prophet to be doctrine?

If it is followed by or previous to a "Thus saith the Lord" then it is scripture. Everything else is doctrine. So, yes.

I don't rely upon a council stating what is and isn't inspired. If a prophet is truly the mouthpiece of the Lord, then everything that come from the mouth of that prophet is of God. True that sometimes they sin or fall into transgressions. However, God knows their future. He picked them for a purpose; they are humble. If a prophet were proud, the prophet might not realize his/her transgression or refuse to take it to the Lord.

 

[Sthatting]

I love it when somebody tells me to read carefully. :sarcastic

If you don't see the difference between the OT law and NT law then I can't help you much.


Time of Chist:
1. Gentiles not allowed to hear the gospel or join church.
2. God changes law and allows Gentiles in.

Latter days:
1. Blacks not allowed to hold the priesthood.
2. God changes law and allows blacks the priesthood.


Could you explain how the two situations are different and why the first change is legitimate but the second one isn't?

Well, according to madhatter's passage in Matthew, the Latter-days were not the time that the priesthood was allowed to be held. It was back during the times of Christ. Here's how I see it.

Time of Chist:
1. Mosaic Law fulfilled through Christ.
2. Relationship with Christ possible and salvation by grace with the law of love. Love one another.

Latter-days
1. Spiritual gifts lost. God seemingly does not talk to people anymore.
2. The Father and Jesus Christ break the veil of silence and restore their church with spiritual gifts of prophesy, tongues, and visions. Law of exaltation revealed unto the prophet Joseph Smith and witnesses, as well as another witness to the Bible and Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon.

HALLELUJAH!

 

[madhatter85]

However, Brigham Young, a PROPHET of God, says that Cain's offspring should not hold the blessings of the priesthood (they are more than welcome to have membership) in the Church, but they cannot hold the priesthood until Christ's second coming. That is a doctrine that Brigham Young taught. And it doesn't make sense to me when a prophet a few presidencies later revokes that doctrine. I would expect a church of God to be consistent. Not a rat race maze to find the right doctrines, etc.

Let me point out that he was the ONLY prophet to teach this. as well as other rejected doctrines and attitudes that he had spoken and portrayed.

That's for another thread. I wouldn't want to complicate things here by bringing something like that in.

If you liek we can debate this as well

Let me ask you this. How do you explain Brigham Young's teachings, people who have testified of Joseph Smith's teaching regarding blacks not being able to hold the priesthood, or John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, etc., etc., etc.?

I'd like to hear your thoughts as to why Matthew 10 would say one thing, and Brigham Young, a PROPHET OF GOD, would say something completely different. You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God, correct?

"thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off for pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away." -Brigham Young

The Lord said this to Brigham Young. Then Brigham Young teaches that it wouldn't happen until the second coming of Jesus Christ. He was a prophet of God. You think he'd know something when the Lord tells him things and he teaches them. :shout

First, you didn't answer my question, i would like to see how you explain that an Apostle was of Black decent.

Second, Let me quote Joseph Smith talking to Brigham Young.

Your name shall be known for good and evil throughout the world.

• Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 471; Journal of Discourses 10:297

The Same prophecy was given to Joseph Smith. We have to pray with the Holy Spirit and let it guide us towards the truth. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were Falliable human beings, the angel Moroni TOLD Joseph that he would be known for Good and Evil. They both taught doctrines which are not practiced today, nor taught, but as for the majority, they are.

 

[Bishka]

Second, Let me quote Joseph Smith talking to Brigham Young.

[/list]The Same prophecy was given to Joseph Smith. We have to pray with the Holy Spirit and let it guide us towards the truth. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were Falliable human beings, the angel Moroni TOLD Joseph that he would be known for Good and Evil. They both taught doctrines which are not practiced today, nor taught, but as for the majority, they are.

Uh, guys, they aren't claiming to be members of the LDS Church, if they were, I think more of us would have a problem, but they aren't. You get on people for jumping all over us, let's give them a break.

 

[Comprehend]

Well, according to madhatter's passage in Matthew, the Latter-days were not the time that the priesthood was allowed to be held. It was back during the times of Christ. Here's how I see it.

Time of Chist:
1. Mosaic Law fulfilled through Christ.
2. Relationship with Christ possible and salvation by grace with the law of love. Love one another.

Latter-days
1. Spiritual gifts lost. God seemingly does not talk to people anymore.
2. The Father and Jesus Christ break the veil of silence and restore their church with spiritual gifts of prophesy, tongues, and visions. Law of exaltation revealed unto the prophet Joseph Smith and witnesses, as well as another witness to the Bible and Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon.

HALLELUJAH!

um... That's nice.

Could you answer my question now?

 

[Comprehend]

If it is followed by or previous to a "Thus saith the Lord" then it is scripture. Everything else is doctrine. So, yes.

I don't rely upon a council stating what is and isn't inspired. If a prophet is truly the mouthpiece of the Lord, then everything that come from the mouth of that prophet is of God. True that sometimes they sin or fall into transgressions. However, God knows their future. He picked them for a purpose; they are humble. If a prophet were proud, the prophet might not realize his/her transgression or refuse to take it to the Lord.

what is the difference to you between scripture and doctrine?

So when your prophet says "honey, we are out of toilet paper." You consider that to be doctrine?

What about all of the scripture that isn't immediately preceeded by "thus sayeth the lord."? Is that really scripture?

 

[jonny]

If it is followed by or previous to a "Thus saith the Lord" then it is scripture. Everything else is doctrine. So, yes.

I don't rely upon a council stating what is and isn't inspired. If a prophet is truly the mouthpiece of the Lord, then everything that come from the mouth of that prophet is of God. True that sometimes they sin or fall into transgressions. However, God knows their future. He picked them for a purpose; they are humble. If a prophet were proud, the prophet might not realize his/her transgression or refuse to take it to the Lord.

David O McKay said that the issue of blacks and the priesthood was one of policy and not doctrine. When does your church believe that the Latter-day Saint prophets fell away from the truth?

 

[Comprehend]

David O McKay said that the issue of blacks and the priesthood was one of policy and not doctrine. When does your church believe that the Latter-day Saint prophets fell away from the truth?

I think I can answer this one.

Wilford Woodruff and the First Official Declaration renouncing polygamy.

 

[Bathsheba]

eta: deleted my own post because I shouldn't be hanging out here

 

[Bishka]

And the Mormon Apostle Peterson said he would be willing to let them drive a Cadillac.

"Now we are generous with the Negro. ... I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing - what God hath separated, let not man bring together again. "

20 Concerns about Mormonism

Personally, I like to be genreous with the Eskimo ... I would be willing to let them have indoor heating if they could afford it, but let them enjoy these things up North.

Sweetie, this is the LDS DIR. :yes:

Funny enough about that man, his words are his own, not doctrine and never has been.

 

[Sthatting]

um... That's nice.

Could you answer my question now?

I didn't agree with what you said. I thought the one I presented was a possibly more accurate statement rather than just letting Gentiles and blacks partake of the priesthood.

 

[Sthatting]

what is the difference to you between scripture and doctrine?

So when your prophet says "honey, we are out of toilet paper." You consider that to be doctrine?

What about all of the scripture that isn't immediately preceeded by "thus sayeth the lord."? Is that really scripture?

Scripture, to my understanding, is something that is canonized by a group of people that generally believe something is inspired of God. A "thus saith the Lord" statement would be uncanonized if it weren't voted to be official scripture by the congregation, but I believe, is just as binding as the general consensus "official" scripture... maybe even more.

Doctrine is just interpretation of scripture; both official and unofficial.

Hope that helps you understand a bit more of my views on that.

 

[Sthatting]

I think I can answer this one.

Wilford Woodruff and the First Official Declaration renouncing polygamy.

That's one place to start.

 

[Sthatting]

Sweetie, this is the LDS DIR. :yes:

Funny enough about that man, his words are his own, not doctrine and never has been.

Maybe this is an important time to distinguish between an apostle and a prophet. I believe the prophet to be binding. An apostle writes his own opinion which may or may not be correct.

This is an interesting video if you wonder about polygamy.

YouTube - Polygamy-A Glass House

 

[Comprehend]

I didn't agree with what you said. I thought the one I presented was a possibly more accurate statement rather than just letting Gentiles and blacks partake of the priesthood.

Are you claiming that the Bible does not show that the Gentiles at one point could not recieve the gospel and then the law was changed to allow them to?

If not, why don't you answer my question?

 

[Comprehend]

That's one place to start.

Does that mean you disagree?

By all means, feel free to correct me. I just figured that was it since that is what most fundies claim.

 

[Bishka]

Maybe this is an important time to distinguish between an apostle and a prophet. I believe the prophet to be binding. An apostle writes his own opinion which may or may not be correct.

She was referring to Elder Peterson, not a prophet.