The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Blacks and the Priesthood)

[waitasec]

So are you claiming that there were no black men in the church when the church was suposively denying them the priesthood.

no silly expecting to be allowed to be in the priesthood...
do you wait in line to go to the women's restroom? of course not, because you are not allowed in the woman's restroom.
get it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So are you claiming that there were no black men in the church when the church was suposively denying them the priesthood.

No, I'm saying that your question is irrelevant to deciding whether the policy was racist.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

no silly expecting to be allowed to be in the priesthood...
do you wait in line to go to the women's restroom? of course not, because you are not allowed in the woman's restroom.
get it?

So according to my knowledge there was no doctrine stating that they ever should be denied. Only that they were not to be denied. If anyone ever was denied it was a mistake of men.
Can you prove me wrong?

 

[zomg]

So are you claiming that there were no black men in the church when the church was suposively denying them the priesthood.

Now you are just being silly. I'm not interested in playing games with you. You know what we mean.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

No, I'm saying that your question is irrelevant to deciding whether the policy was racist.

What policy? There never was a policy.

 

[waitasec]

So according to my knowledge there was no doctrine stating that they ever should be denied. Only that they were not to be denied. If anyone ever was denied it was a mistake of men.
Can you prove me wrong?

are you familiar with the juvenile instructor, the LDS messenger and advocate, and times and seasons?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I have heard of the times and seasons before, but it was a newspaper, and not at all considered doctrine.

 

[waitasec]

I have heard of the times and seasons before, but it was a newspaper, and not at all considered doctrine.

fair enough. would you consider their articles as a means to grasp the tone of the church?

edit:
one more question.
do you believe the official doctrine is considered to be the standard works and official statements from the first presidency?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

grasp a tone of a church?
Church Members maybe, the tone of the church however something different.
If the article is about the doctrine of the church it might grasp the tone of the church.
Such as if the article was talking about how the Church is dead set against pornography. There would then be tons of doctrinal references that the article could be based on.
Just remember the LDS view of a church is, "it is a hospital for sinners, not a retirement home for saints." Just because the members are doing one thing, doesn't mean that the church is teaching them to do that or even condoning it. There are tons of imperfect church members out there whose actions in no way represent the church, what it teaches, and what it stands for.

 

[Katzpur]

That is racist. I am not saying “God” is racist, I don’t believe in any “God”, so obviously I don’t believe that “God” ever denied anybody anything based on the colour of their skin. But if “God” did deny something to some people based on their race, that would clearly be racism.

I've got to agree with you on that.

 

[Katzpur]

Name one worthy black man who was denied the priestood. Until you can your words are meaningless.

I'll name five for starters: Joseph Freeman, Len Hope, Darius Gray, Ruffin Bridgeforth and Eugene Orr.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't really believe in a God.

Then why not just change your religion (for purposes of this forum) to "atheist"? Wouldn't that be more honest? Or don't you believe in honesty any more either?

 

[zomg]

Then why not just change your religion (for purposes of this forum) to "atheist"? Wouldn't that be more honest? Or don't you believe in honesty any more either?

A New Order Mormon can believe in whatever he or she chooses to believe. Right now I am not certain of my definition or beliefs in "God".

Also, I'm more honest than a lot of Mormons I know :slap:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What policy? There never was a policy.

Hmm. It seems that George Albert Smith agreed with you (emphasis mine):

The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."
​

Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: whether you want to attribute the policy to the will of fallible human beings or the direct command of God, I'm going to take more than a century's worth of statements from the LDS leadership that the LDS Church did in fact have a policy barring blacks from the priesthood over your revisionism.

 

[Katzpur]

...whether you want to attribute the policy to the will of fallible human beings or the direct command of God, I'm going to take more than a century's worth of statements from the LDS leadership that the LDS Church did in fact have a policy barring blacks from the priesthood over your revisionism.

Of course they did. Is that really in question?

 

[Katzpur]

A New Order Mormon can believe in whatever he or she chooses to believe.

Works out well, huh? Especially on message boards.

 

[waitasec]

Of course they did. Is that really in question?

curious, do you adhere to the belief that the official doctrine is the standard works and official statements from the first presidency?

 

[waitasec]

Works out well, huh? Especially on message boards.

i can say the same about the LDS in regards to it being an offshoot of christianity...especially on message boards

 

[Katzpur]

curious, do you adhere to the belief that the official doctrine is the standard works and official statements from the first presidency?

I can't wait to see where you're going with this, waitasec. If I understand you correctly, then yes. I would say, though, that any "official statements" from the First Presidency would also have to be issued by the Quorum of the Twelve. In other words, the statement would have to be signed by 15 individuals in order to be doctrinally binding.

 

[Katzpur]

i can say the same about the LDS in regards to it being an offshoot of christianity...especially on message boards

Man, I'm feeling really dense. I know that was supposed to be a slam , but I'm afraid I missed your point.