mormonism racist?

[DeepShadow]

(Black Mormon)

Does Black Mormon cite a source for these 130 years? Does s/he cite a source for the proclamation being official? Give me a source! I can go reedit wikipedia, take a screen print, and post that on my web site. Doesn't mean anything.

The BYU quote I don't mind at all: they were INTERPRETED as being doctrine. This was an abomination that was preached from pulpits, right along with actual doctrine! Faithful saints were being led astray! Something needed to be done...and it was. There was an official proclamation setting things right, with a date.

Funny that, huh? If there as an official proclamation of the ban itself, our critics would LOVE to quote it! Imagine how you could make LDS squirm if you read that! I wonder why even none of the rabidly anti-Mormon sites cite such a document?!

 

[tomasortega]

audiotact, you have to understand, a black mormon source does not qualify as a reputable source, because those darned blackies are the seed of cain and have it in for true mormons. so of course they will do their darnest to distort the truth. they are like the illuminati you see.

 

[DeepShadow]

audiotact, you have to understand, a black mormon source does not qualify as a reputable source, because those darned blackies are the seed of cain and have it in for true mormons. so of course they will do their darnest to distort the truth. they are like the illuminati you see.

Which is why Idea has been posting several quotes from black lds sites, including the one referenced by Auto's site.

It's not a valid source because it's not a SOURCE. Do I need to define that for you, too?

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm googling the date and prophet's name, and here's what I'm getting:
"January 6, 1848" "Brigham Young" - Google Search
Anyone finding an official proclamation? If this was an official proclamation, it should be out there somewhere, though Google is only a starting place. We'll find it!

 

[maklelan]

Did that make the slightest difference to the Black Mormons who were denied the priesthood for 100 years?

Was that your question?

I'll answer for you since you're obviously not interested in honestly engaging this discussion. No, it wasn't your question, and it's a very infantile evasion of the discussion. Your question was an ignorant attempt to find a mistake in something that was not mistaken. Your perspective has been shown repeatedly to be naive and very mistaken. Stop pretending to be an expert on this, and stop pretending to lecture Mormons about what they're supposed to think about their church.

 

[Autodidact]

in the 1947 exchange of letters between Professor Lowry Nelson, a distinguished Mormon sociologist, and the First Presidency of the Church.3 The latter's remarks to Nelson, who questioned the validity of church policy on race, are important because they were the first official (though not public) church utterance on the race subject for a long time. Following the traditional rationale, the Presidency explained the policy on blacks in terms of differential merit in the premortal life; stated that the priesthood ban was official church policy from the days of Joseph Smith onward; and raised, with great misgivings, the specter of racial intermarriage.4 Two years later, the First Presidency issued its first general and public statement on the priesthood policy. This letter went beyond the earlier private one in its theological rationale, and included references to the black skin as indicating ancestry from Cain...this well-known letter expressed the position held, with rare exception and certainly without embarrassment, by Mormon leaders until very recent times.

Neither White nor Black:
Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue
in a Universal Church

Edited by Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss

​

 

[Autodidact]

Was that your question?

I'll answer for you since you're obviously not interested in honestly engaging this discussion. No, it wasn't your question, and it's a very infantile evasion of the discussion. Your question was an ignorant attempt to find a mistake in something that was not mistaken. Your perspective has been shown repeatedly to be naive and very mistaken. Stop pretending to be an expert on this, and stop pretending to lecture Mormons about what they're supposed to think about their church.

Oh, I thought you were going to try to answer the question. So, as I said, did it make any difference to the Black Mormons who were denied the priesthood?

 

[maklelan]

The Curse of Cain Doctrine was an OFFICIAL doctrine of the Church for 130 years, and the Priesthood-ban Policy was an official policy of the Church for 130 years (1848-1978)

(Black Mormon)

I'm afraid that's flat wrong. It was never made official, and there's no text or piece of evidence in existence anywhere that can refute that. All that can be said is that it was assumed to be valid by all the leaders. Not a one of them tried to make it official or even point to an official beginning for it. President John Taylor tried, and he guessed it had to have begun with Joseph Smith, but he couldn't produce anything to corroborate that.

 

[tomasortega]

Which is why Idea has been posting several quotes from black lds sites, including the one referenced by Auto's site.

It's not a valid source because it's not a SOURCE. Do I need to define that for you, too?

you know, i find it insanely mind boggling how you continue to deny widely accepted human history by getting hung up on impertinent self imposed technicalities, such as, in this case, the word "official" ........ "oh, good golly, i dont see the word "official" anywhere so i guess that means all of humanity except for myself and some of my mighty righteous mormon bretheren are in error...........better yet. its all one big conspiracy against us latter day saints. watch out, all of humanity is out to get us.
i bet if i found an excerpt from your former beloved leader and prophet, gordon hinckley that you disagree with, ud just claim his particular words were not god inspired but rather human error.

no wonder im not taking this debate seriously anylonger.

 

[maklelan]

Oh, I thought you were going to try to answer the question. So, as I said, did it make any difference to the Black Mormons who were denied the priesthood?

More childish evasion. To answer your question, though, of course it made a difference to many of them. It also made a difference to the many black men who were ordained to the priesthood during the "ban." That was pointed out to you, and you also refused to engage that. To others it did not make a difference. If you would set aside your blinding bigotry for just one moment and look objectively at this situation (or even respond honestly to the numerous posts that have undermined your theses) you'd see this is far more complicated and far less black and white than your reductionist sources would have you believe. You're not particularly informed on this issue, you're not being honest in this debate, and you're not impressing anyone with this cowardice and naivety.

 

[maklelan]

no wonder im not taking this debate seriously anylonger.

You were never taking this debate seriously. You haven't responded to numerous posts that point out there errors and fallacies of your assertions, you're just posting incredibly ignorant statements from equally naive anti-Mormons and waiting to see what sticks. You're acting like a child, and this pretend indignation isn't fooling anyone.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm afraid that's flat wrong. It was never made official, and there's no text or piece of evidence in existence anywhere that can refute that. All that can be said is that it was assumed to be valid by all the leaders. Not a one of them tried to make it official or even point to an official beginning for it. President John Taylor tried, and he guessed it had to have begun with Joseph Smith, but he couldn't produce anything to corroborate that.

So you disagree with Armand Mauss when he refers to specific letters and statements from the First Presidency, cited above?

And many more from Lester SBush, such as:

From the days of the Prophet Joseph until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel

First Presidency letter (from Presidents Smith, Clark, and McKay) to Lowry Nelson 17 July 1947, copy at Brigham Young University library.

Excerpts from the exchange of correspondence between Nelson and the First Presidency are reproduced in John J. Stewart, Mormonism and the Negro (Orem, Utah: Bookmark Division, Community Press, 1960), pp. 33, 46, 47, 54. For more on Nelson's interaction with Church leaders during the 1940s, see his letter in Dialogue 2 (Autumn 1967): 8-9, and Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks, epilogue, and notes.

 

[Autodidact]

You were never taking this debate seriously. You haven't responded to numerous posts that point out there errors and fallacies of your assertions, you're just posting incredibly ignorant statements from equally naive anti-Mormons and waiting to see what sticks. You're acting like a child, and this pretend indignation isn't fooling anyone.

You're mistaken. Every source I've used has been Mormon. The Black Mormon is a Mormon page. I've cited noted Mormon scholars such as Armand Mauss and Lester Bush. In fact, I haven't used a single anti-Mormon quote. Please point out any error that I have not responded to, or any fallacy I've made. Nor do I recall expressing any indignation, rather just patient digging into reputable Mormon sources.

So I gather that's a no to my question, it made no difference to Black Mormons denied the priesthood for 150 years?

 

[Autodidact]

More childish evasion. To answer your question, though, of course it made a difference to many of them. It also made a difference to the many black men who were ordained to the priesthood during the "ban." That was pointed out to you, and you also refused to engage that. To others it did not make a difference. If you would set aside your blinding bigotry for just one moment and look objectively at this situation (or even respond honestly to the numerous posts that have undermined your theses) you'd see this is far more complicated and far less black and white than your reductionist sources would have you believe. You're not particularly informed on this issue, you're not being honest in this debate, and you're not impressing anyone with this cowardice and naivety.

Can you discuss this at all without resorting to name-calling? The forum expects you to address the substance of my posts. Are my sources erroneous? If so, please show how, and supply your sources, as I have done. Thank you.

 

[maklelan]

So you disagree with Armand Mauss when he refers to specific letters and statements from the First Presidency, cited above?

Yes, I disagree. As I stated quite clearly, this was a working ban that was never official brought before the First Presidency or the general assembly for approval. For some reason (your bigoted dogmatism) none of you want to respond to that, and instead keep burping up these utterly irrelevant assertions. I'll spell it out for you in terms that are simple as I can come up with.

One thing make something official doctrine and one thing only; that's the explicit and unanimous declaration of the First Presidency (via official declaration or proclamation). Since no such declaration or proclamation officially instituting the ban has ever been composed, it is not official doctrine. It can be policy, and can be unquestioned for decades, and it can be vehemently enforced, but without the explicit and unanimous declaration of the First Presidency, it absolutely cannot be doctrine. Don't tell me what my church believes, and don't tell me I don't understand it. Respond to this fact if you can, but any further attempts to evade the subject or sling more irrelevant secondary literature in my direction will only show you're unwilling and unable to engage the question directly, and that you know you can't win on honest and legitimate terms. Stop pretending you're an authority on this subject and act like an adult.

 

[Autodidact]

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. 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.

First Presidency Statement on The Negro Question, August 17, 1949.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I disagree. As I stated quite clearly, this was a working ban that was never official brought before the First Presidency or the general assembly for approval. For some reason (your bigoted dogmatism) none of you want to respond to that, and instead keep burping up these utterly irrelevant assertions. I'll spell it out for you in terms that are simple as I can come up with.

One thing make something official doctrine and one thing only; that's the explicit and unanimous declaration of the First Presidency (via official declaration or proclamation). Since no such declaration or proclamation officially instituting the ban has ever been composed, it is not official doctrine. It can be policy, and can be unquestioned for decades, and it can be vehemently enforced, but without the explicit and unanimous declaration of the First Presidency, it absolutely cannot be doctrine. Don't tell me what my church believes, and don't tell me I don't understand it. Respond to this fact if you can, but any further attempts to evade the subject or sling more irrelevant secondary literature in my direction will only show you're unwilling and unable to engage the question directly, and that you know you can't win on honest and legitimate terms. Stop pretending you're an authority on this subject and act like an adult.

If you can't stop making personal attacks and address the substance of my posts, I will have to report you to the moderators. I have not evaded anything, and I'll thank you to stop falsely asserting that I am. I have responded directly, with cites to Mormon scholars and documents, to every point that has been raised to me. I am citing original church documents. I'm not pretending anything, just researching the question and learning about it. Nor am I arguing (or was I asked to argue) doctrine. The question is whether the priesthood ban was official church policy. Clearly it was, as I have documented extensively. This seems to upset you, but it is the fact of the case. I am looking forward to a signature change from Deep Shadow.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I disagree.

You realize that this scholarly work cites primary sources to which the author had direct access, right? And that Mauss is a respected Mormon scholar? Did he forge the documents? Or lie about what's in them? Do you think you should report this to his University?

 

[maklelan]

Can you discuss this at all without resorting to name-calling?

Don't talk down to me as if you're being the least bit honest in this discussion.

The forum expects you to address the substance of my posts.

When you begin to address the substance of mine I will return the favor, but as you've shown in the following exchange, you're not interested in engaging anything honestly:

I think the point was that there was a working ban that really had no indication of ever having been formally accepted as revelation or as doctrine. Thus it was not official, despite the assumptions of those in the church who espouse the idea that if a church authority said it, it's official.[/quote]

Did that make the slightest difference to the Black Mormons who were denied the priesthood for 100 years?[/quote]

You're only interested in slinging bigotry and evading points you can't deal with.

Are my sources erroneous?

I've stated so unequivocally. You didn't respond. Remember?

If so, please show how, and supply your sources, as I have done. Thank you.

See the official church website's explanation of what constitutes doctrine here. The relevant quotes are the following:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

This is as I have explained already more than once. You have yet to directly engage those statements, you've only childishly changed the subject. You're not an expert on this. Grow up and stop wasting yours and everyone else's time with this ridiculous crusade.

 

[maklelan]

You realize that this scholarly work cites primary sources to which the author had direct access, right?

So? That doesn't make his interpretation correct (or yours).

And that Mauss is a respected Mormon scholar?

I really don't care. Am I required to?

Did he forge the documents? Or lie about what's in them? Do you think you should report this to his University?

His interpretation is incorrect. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.