Posts 61 and 64 for starters. Those posts demonstrate you don’t know or appreciate Mormon history as it relates to the black community and black members.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mormon sex therapist faces discipline and possible expulsion from the LDS Church
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
You are doing exactly what you did before - just claiming that I am wrong.
Quote exactly what I said that you claim is wrong and then prove - by referencing some source - that it is wrong.
You are not prepared for this - are you?
Let’s keep it simple, shall we…
You said, “I don't know everything about the Mormons - but I do know that their doctrine never contained anything about black people being "bad".”
To the contrary, Mormon doctrine prohibited blacks from holding the priesthood and receiving temple ceremonies necessary for exaltation. Brigham Young taught that they were the third of spirits in the pre-existence who didn’t fully reject satan and accept Christ. The Book of Mormon teaches the wicked had dark skin.
These are all examples of Mormon doctrine teaching that blacks are bad.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Well - ancient Israel doctrine prohibited anyone who wasn't a direct descendant of Aaron or Levi from holding the Priesthood - and only one man - the High Priest - could enter the Holy of Holies.
Does this mean that ancient Israelites considered all non-Aaron and non-Levi descending Israelites as "bad"?
From what I understand Mormons teach that not everyone is entitled to the Priesthood - so denying someone the Priesthood who had no right to it in the first place is not a declaration that that person is "bad".
I assume - because a man needs the Priesthood in order to worship at a Mormon Temple - that the same rule applies to Temple attendance - that no one is entitled to it.
I also understand that Mormons teach that people can be saved and even "exalted" without ever having been baptized or worship at the Temple while in mortality.
They believe that it is possible for mortals to perform these ordinances on behalf of those who did not do them while they lived on Earth. They call them "vicarious works".
I don't understand why these things are the way they are - but from a Biblical standpoint - there is nothing wrong with denying people the Priesthood or entrance into the Temple - and doing so is certainly not a declaration that anyone is "bad".
I mean - think about it - non-Mormons aren't allowed the Priesthood or Temple ordinances either - and the Mormon Church doesn't teach that all non-Mormons are "bad".
I know for a fact that anything said by a leader in the Mormon Church is not instantly considered "doctrine".
Any supposed inspiration or revelation is voted upon by the "General Authorities" - who are the church leaders - much like how the early Apostolic Church decided on doctrine in the Book of Acts.
And didn't the Mormon Church release an official statement refuting this idea?
I understand that the Book of Mormon tells the story about a family whose less-faithful members were cursed with a dark skin - but doesn't that book also claim that many of these "Lamanites" were righteous - at least more righteous than the light-skinned "Nephites"?
I didn't see anything you claimed proving that - but maybe you could try to quote from some sources next time?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I wouldn't trust Watchmen to b a particularly "objective" source of information about Mormonism. He is a former Mormon, but he's got a major axe to grind with respect to his prior religion. Yes, the LDS Church did definitely have a discriminatory practice against people of African descent and it was unfortunately in place for many years. As regrettable as the Church's policy was, it wasn't because they considered Blacks to be "bad." Furthermore, all of the comments used to justify or even explain why the policy existed in the first place have since been said to be nothing more than the opinions of the individuals who made them. This would include Brigham Young's statements.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
That's too bad - but not surprising given his comments thus far.
So - do you believe that this Priesthood ban was wrong? If so - why?
Why do you believe the ban was implemented?
Correct - but what is the LDS Church's official stance on why the ban was implemented?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I believe it was wrong, yes. It was wrong because it was discriminatory and God isn't. The Book of Mormon explicitly states, "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33)
In my opinion, it was just how Brigham Young responded to the social pressures of the day. I can't say whether or not he was personally prejudiced against people of color (I suspect he was, but I don't know his heart) or whether he just did what he felt would benefit a young and growing church the most. He was able to justify the ban, both in his mind and in the minds of the people, by appealing to various passages of Biblical scripture, but we have no record of his having received any kind of revelation from God to implement the ban.
Good question. The Church has made no official declaration as to why the ban was ever established in the first place. They seem not to really know. I'm not crazy about people posting links and I generally don't even bother reading them, so if you feel the same way, and choose to ignore the one I'm posting, you owe me no explanation. It might be something you would find interesting, though. It's from the Church's official website and is called "Race and the Priesthood."
Ditto. I would have typed up a very similar answer myself.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Cool. Thank you for your responses.
I have a few clarifying questions - if you don't mind.
Is it possible that this verse is in reference to salvation and membership into the Church and not necessarily the holding of the Priesthood and Temple admittance?
Because - and correct me if I am wrong - but doesn't the LDS Church teach that no one needs the Priesthood or Temple ordinances to be saved?
And doesn't the LDS Church teach that it is possible for those who never held the Priesthood or worshipped in the Temple during mortality to receive those blessings of "exaltation" after the fact through "vicarious works" being performed for them?
I only ask because if you believe that God not allowing people to hold the Priesthood or enter the Temple is a "denial" of His goodness - then would you not also believe that the majority of ancient Israel - those not allowed to hold the Priesthood and enter the first and second Temples - were "denied" of His goodness?
Why would they need revelation to lift a ban that wasn't itself revelatory?
The fact that the ban was not implemented until almost a decade after the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the quote in the link from Brigham Young makes me believe that he did not implement the ban out of prejudice.
"President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members."
I do not know the mind of God - but He has limited access to the Priesthood and Temple worship in the past - even to the chosen seed of Israel - so I don't personally see any direct contradiction between this ban and the one placed on ancient Israel.
I just can never think that anything is ever as simple as it appeara - but what do I know?
I have a few clarifying questions - if you don't mind.
How does your opinion about God scan with what we know about the Priesthood and the Old Testament - particularly in regards to ancient Israel - that only certain Israelites were allowed to hold the Priesthood and it was based almost solely on ones ancestry?
From what I understand - the LDS Church never denied anyone baptism or reception into the Church based on race or skin color.
Is it possible that this verse is in reference to salvation and membership into the Church and not necessarily the holding of the Priesthood and Temple admittance?
Because - and correct me if I am wrong - but doesn't the LDS Church teach that no one needs the Priesthood or Temple ordinances to be saved?
And doesn't the LDS Church teach that it is possible for those who never held the Priesthood or worshipped in the Temple during mortality to receive those blessings of "exaltation" after the fact through "vicarious works" being performed for them?
I only ask because if you believe that God not allowing people to hold the Priesthood or enter the Temple is a "denial" of His goodness - then would you not also believe that the majority of ancient Israel - those not allowed to hold the Priesthood and enter the first and second Temples - were "denied" of His goodness?
Yet many Church leaders - even First Presidencies - maintained that they would require a revelation from god to lift the ban - did they not?
Why would they need revelation to lift a ban that wasn't itself revelatory?
Thank you for the link - I have read it before - I find the entire concept fascinating myself.
The fact that the ban was not implemented until almost a decade after the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the quote in the link from Brigham Young makes me believe that he did not implement the ban out of prejudice.
"President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members."
I do not know the mind of God - but He has limited access to the Priesthood and Temple worship in the past - even to the chosen seed of Israel - so I don't personally see any direct contradiction between this ban and the one placed on ancient Israel.
I just can never think that anything is ever as simple as it appeara - but what do I know?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
No problem.
I'll be honest with you; I'm not really sure. Perhaps Jane.Doe might. I hope that she'll weigh in on this if she does. I know that this is one of the reasons that was given throughout the years for the Priesthood ban, and it's possible that it was a legitimate reason. I'm just not much of an Old Testament scholar.
That is true. It is also true that we never had segregated congregations. I also know that in my entire life (and I'm now 73), I was never taught in Church that skin color justified anyone treating Blacks cruelly. As a matter of fact, my grandfather, a very devout man and a bishop at that time, and grandmother (both born in the 1800s), made sure I understood this. They lived in a very racially diverse part of the city when I was growing up. There were several Hispanic and Black families on her street. I can clearly recall being at their house one afternoon and asking my grandma if I could go out and play in her front yard. She said, "Yes, but you be nice to the little coloreds." (People might be shocked by her use of the word "colored," but it was much more socially correct back in the early 1950s than other terms then being used.) I remember thinking, "Okay. Why wouldn't I be." I thought this because I'd never been taught that me being White and someone else being Black was an excuse for me to mistreat them.
I suppose it's possible, however I am uncomfortable trying to justify a policy I have never been comfortable with by suggesting that this is the case. With regards to the idea of "salvation," that word actually means a number of different things to Latter-day Saints, depending upon the context in which it is used. First of all, there is salvation from the permanence of death. We believe that literally everyone who has ever lived will be resurrected, so obviously neither the Priesthood nor Temple ordinances are required in order for us to be raised from the dead and live again forever. (It may seem as if this goes without saying, but remember: the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a significant number of people will ultimately simply be made to go out of existence entirely.)
Then there is the salvation that implies that a person will be received into Heaven. I'm relatively certain that Watchman would say that only the Celestial Kingdom is truly Heaven and that we believe only Latter-day Saints will receive this degree of glory. Everyone else, I believe I've heard him say, will be consigned to the two lower kingdoms of Heaven, which is just the Latter-day Saints way of sugar-coating Hell. This is not what is taught by the Church. The Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms are very much part of Heaven and no one who ends up in either of these will feel as if they're in Hell. Furthermore, entrance to the Celestial Kingdom is not going to be determined along denominational lines. A great many Latter-day Saints who believe it is, are going to be very surprised to find Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Hindus there too. Some are going to be even more surprised to find themselves in one of the "lower" kingdoms.
When Mormons speak of salvation among themselves, they are most frequently referring to Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, aka "the fullness of salvation." This means being blessed to enjoy the same kind of existence God himself does. This is what we are striving for, and so when we suggest that certain people may not be "saved," we're implying (as if we had a say in the matter) that they may not be heirs to Celestial Glory. As all of this background information applies to your question, I would say that salvation is not dependent upon a person holding the priesthood. The "fullness of salvation," on the other hand, is.
Yes, absolutely.
Again, I'm not really sure how to respond to this question. I do believe that God is good. I don't understand all of the reasons for some of the things He chooses to do, and I definitely don't understand a great many of the things those in leadership positions choose to do. Still, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think I'm even in a position to "give God the benefit of the doubt." I just trust Him to make everything right in the end.
Yes, a great many of them did. What you may not know is that any revelation is received first through the Prophet and must then also be given to the rest of the First Presidency and to the Quorum of the Twelve. In other words, all fifteen men must be in agreement in order for a new doctrine (or even policy) to be implemented. My personal feelings are that up until 1978, there may have been a couple of "hold-outs." Of course, I have no way of knowing this. I'm basing it solely on some of the comments they made over the years before the ban was lifted and before they died.
Good question. I don't believe they did. But you must understand that the ban had been in place since the mid-1800s -- well over a century and a quarter. No one alive in 1978 had been alive back when Brigham Young instituted the ban. People as old as I am had grown up knowing that Blacks were denied the priesthood, and assuming that this was God's will. Whenever we questioned it, people were all too ready to provide answers. The thing is, these answers were all just opinions. Most of us (IMO) never really thought to ask, "But where in the Doctrine and Covenants do we find the revelation establishing the ban in the first place?" By the mid-1900s, the fact that Blacks couldn't hold the Priesthood had become a cultural norm, accepted by the vast majority of Latter-day Saints as being God's will. It was so ingrained in our psyches that we needed a revelation to justify lifting the ban. The lifting of the ban through an official declaration satisfied us whereas just a casual change in policy would not have done. I'm not saying that there wasn't a revelation telling the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to make the Priesthood available to all worthy men, regardless of color or lineage. I believe there actually was. I just don't believe it came until all fifteen of these men were humble enough to go to the Lord and say, "What should we do? Is the time right?" They had to actually be open to being told, "Change your policy," in order for their prayers to be answered. And prior to that time, I don't believe all of them were.
I must say, you know a lot about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and you seem to have taken your information from legitimate sources. When did you start studying Mormonism and why?
I don't know. It's hard to say. My main reason for disagreeing with you would be that typically something so monumental as implementing a policy denying such blessings to men of color is not something that would have just been gradually implemented without some sort of major announcement by the Prophet that the Lord had spoken and had revealed His will to us. That revelation would have been preserved as a section in the Doctrine & Covenants.
That's right, and it's a good argument for the possibility that the ban was not a prejudice-driven decision. On the other hand, it could still have been one that Brigham Young simply believed would benefit the Church as a whole at that time, given the political and cultural climate of the day.
You're right. There may not be one. I know that was the explanation I used for many years. It's just that a number of passages in the Doctrine & Covenants seem to imply that the Priesthood is a blessing that should be available to all worthy men.
I'm with you. I certainly don't have all the answers. But like you, I am always open to learning whatever God wants to teach me.
Last edited:
Oh, they could become members, but they could not hold the priesthood and receive sacred ordinances (think sacraments) necessary for Mormon exaltation. They were second class citizens, if you will.
Incorrect. I’m nothing but objective. Unlike you and other believers, I’m no longer blinded by “faith.” I have no axe to grind. I only state the truth.
Tons of speculation in your post, Katz.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Thank you so much for your responses.
As my name implies - I love the idea of prophets - and I became convinced long ago that only those men that have a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ can be true prophets.
So - obviously - Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets are on my list of men to read up on.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
I believe so - but I wouldn't mind the perspective of a former Mormon.
However - I am still waiting for you to prove that I "know nothing about Mormons and blacks".
If you could prove that claim first - or at least concede that you cannot prove it - then we can move on to a new subject.
Last edited:
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Sex therapists are generally very liberal anyway. It's not a profession that mixes well with faith. It's no wonder this one has landed in hot water. The Bible teaches self-control and overcoming the fleshly desires. I'm reading the book of Romans right now and I like a scripture in Romans 8:13 "for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live." I also recall what is written of Acts when Paul spoke of what his faith stood for: "And as he reasoned of righteousness, and self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified, and answered, Go thy way for this time; and when I have a convenient season, I will call thee unto me." (Acts 24:25).
If we don't have self-control we can't really call ourselves religious.
If that's the case then the only people who are religious are Asexual and the like. Amongst the rest it is pretty natural to practice masturbation even if reluctantly.
92% of American men masturbate.
In my opinion.