kiwimac
Brother Napalm of God's Love
Actually that was Brigham Young's teaching. Joseph Smith Jr. ordained at least one black Priesthood member and the RLDS church has ordained blacks since the 1860s.
-
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!
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Blacks and the Priesthood)
- Thread starter Flat Earth Kyle
- Start date
Actually that was Brigham Young's teaching. Joseph Smith Jr. ordained at least one black Priesthood member and the RLDS church has ordained blacks since the 1860s.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
zomg
I aim to misbehave!
You sure are on one lately. I apologize if I have upset you in some way.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Don't worry about it.
waitasec
Veteran Member
ok,
has god ever lifted the curse of cain notwithstanding the priesthood ban being rescinded for the african americans?
because as far as i can tell, african americans are not diminishing in population...
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hmmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does the curse of cain have something to do with the number of descendents Cain was supposed to have? I'm not all that familiar with the specifics of the curse.
waitasec
Veteran Member
no i'm saying that being black is considered as a curse according to the LDS church. there are scriptures that would support what i am saying and i would like for you to confirm if these quotes are factual or not...
"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established;U] the descent of the black race, Negro, from Cain, the first murderer;[/U]
Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128
and what william e. berrett says in
"The Church and the Negroid People,"
"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."
and this official statement made by the first presidency which was issued on august 17, 1951 that says...
"The position of the LDS Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes....."
Man, I'm feeling really dense. I know that was supposed to be a slam, but I'm afraid I missed your point.
not a slam directed towards you but directed to the LDS church, there is a very big difference.
:rainbow1:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
When you ask, "Are the quotes factual?" do you mean, were they really made at some point? Probably so. Do you mean, "Do they represent official Church doctrine?" then the answer would be "No. They are essentially an attempt to summarize and explain the writer's views on Mormon doctrine.
Try quoting from the Book of Abraham itself. We'll look at what it actually says.
Who's William E. Berrett?
That's an "official statement" I'm totally unfamiliar with. Could you give me your source?
I'm not so sure there is.
At any rate, you may find this statements on the Priesthood ban by LDS leaders to be interesting:
PRESIDENT DAVID O. MCKAY (1954, some 24 years prior to the ban being lifted): There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the Church of any kind pertaining to the Negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the Priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And thats all there is to it.
ELDER DALLIN H. OAKS: In 1988, ten years after the ban was lifted, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, also of the Quorum of the Twelve, gave an interview to the Associated Press. And this is what he said in the interview:
"We can put reasons to commandments. When do so, we are on our own. Some people put reason to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that
Im referring to reasons given by General Authorities and elaborated upon by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be unnecessary risk taking
Lets [not] make the mistake thats been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Here is part of an address given by an LDS Black man a few years ago. His name is Marvin Perkins, and he is a strong member of the Church. As you read this, ask yourself how anyone could argue that men of African America descent should ever have been denied the priesthood -- particularly in light of the complete absense of any actual revelation putting the ban in place to begin with:
One has to search high and low, and be really creative with the interpretation of scripture to support any point of separation, exclusion or division. For example:
D&C 78:5-6 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things, ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things.
D&C 38:24-25 And let every man esteem his brother as himself, and practice virtue and holiness before me. And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself.
D&C 51:9 And let every man deal honestly, and be alike among this people, and receive alike, that ye may be one, even as I have commanded you.
D&C 76:111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, and own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared.
D&C 82:19 Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God.
D&C 88:122 Appoint among yourselves a teaches, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.
SCRIPTURES ON PRIESTHOOD
D&C 1:20 But that every man might aspeak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world
Follow the footnote a on the word speak to the bottom of the page [of the D&C], where it says 20a TG Authority. What is the authority to speak or act in Gods name? TG stands for Topical Guide. Go to the Topical Guide; look up Authority and youll find 44 scriptural references indicating that this passage is referring to Priesthood. This scripture and its supporting footnotes clearly illustrate that the Priesthood was to go to all worthy men.
D&C 3:2-3 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth He turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men
The Lord tells us here that He does not vary from what He has said. Go back to D&C 1:20 and review what He has said. If the instruction is clear and He doth not vary, then we cannot attribute the withholding to Him.
D&C 4:5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, gqualify him for the work.
Follow the footnote for verse 5 g to the bottom of the page to find the following: TG Priesthood, Qualifying for. Here it gives us the criteria for qualifying for the Priesthood.
D&C 4:3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are acalled to the work
Follow footnote a to confirm that this is speaking of Priesthood (D&C 36:5 is clearest That as many as shall come before my servants Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, Jr., embracing this calling and commandment, shall be ordained and sent forth to preach the everlasting gospel among the nations.)
D&C 6:4 Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is called of God.
D&C 11:4 Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is called of God.
D&C 12:4 Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is called of God.
D&C 14:4 Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is called of God.
D&C 36:4-5 And now this calling and commandment give I unto you concerning all men That as many as shall come before my servants Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, Jun., embracing this calling and commandment, shall be ordained and sent forth to preach the everlasting gospel among the nations
D&C 36:7 And this commandment shall be given unto the elders of my church, that every man which will embrace it with singleness of heart may be ordained and sent forth, even as I have spoken.
D&C 63:57 And again, verily I say unto you, those who desire in their hearts, in meekness, to warn sinners to repentance, let them be ordained unto this power.
D&C 84:33-35 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God. And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;
Second Article of Faith We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adams transgression.
Four times in scripture, we find the teaching that the Lord is no respecter of persons. Three of the four times are found in the Doctrine and Covenants. 1:35, 38:16, and 38:26. Take special notice that the fourth time it is found in Acts 10:34, when Peter receives again, the command to take the Gospel to all nations.
- D&C 1:35 For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.
- D&C 38:16 And for your salvation I give unto youre a commandment, for I have heard your prayers, and the poor have complained before me, and the rich have I made, and all flesh is mine, and I am no respecter of persons.
- D&C 38:26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
- Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.
waitasec
Veteran Member
nevertheless people like berrett had an influential role in the church
William E. Berrett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amazon.com: Mormonism and the Negro, and explanation and defense of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regard to Negroes and others ... and the negroid people by William E. Berrett: John J Stewart: Books
well since i cannot confirm the validity of this source that is why i asked if you can confirm. from what i gather it was david o. mckay who made this statement in august of 1951
i found this review on a book called
"David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism"
and this might interest you..
"One of the most contentious public issues during these years was civil rights. The authors describe an administration in which most of President McKay’s “inner circle” was opposed to civil rights legislation, with Hugh B. Brown, a member of the First Presidency, the notable exception.
To the consternation of many people, President McKay tried to sidestep the issue, and no official Church statement was forthcoming. In October 1963, however, he instructed President Brown to read a statement supporting civil rights as part of his own general conference address, and many people considered that statement as official. The controversy did not abate in Utah, however, partly because of Elder Ezra Taft Benson’s continuing effort to link the civil rights movement with Communism.
In the minds of some people, attitudes toward civil rights were not unrelated to the LDS ban on blacks holding the priesthood. The authors provide an important discussion of President McKay’s concern about the ban and his little-known efforts at least to soften it if he could not completely remove it. They note a few ways that he intervened to extend priesthood blessings when he could, such as lifting the requirement in South Africa that a man must trace his genealogy out of that country before he could receive the priesthood. Surrounded by those who, with the exception of Hugh B. Brown, insisted on keeping the ban, he was nevertheless “repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal” (105). He would not change the policy without a revelation, which never came, but the authors rightly maintain that “it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests” (105)."
David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism - BYU Studies
the fact that this ban was there in the 1st place would cause me to pause...
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I have a copy of the book. By the way, my personal feelings are that the ban remained in place for as long as it did was because of Harold B. Lee, President Kimball's immediate predecessor. That's just me, though, basing my opinion on my own personal research.
Well, I certainly don't believe the ban to have been instituted by God. I believe it was instituted by men. So what do I do now -- throw out the baby with the bath water? For me, that would be a very stupid mistake.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
i certainly appreciate your honesty about your feelings about the ban.
and that's just it for me, anything that claims to be divine doctrine is ultimately subjected to opinion especially when it comes to the acceptance of justifying dominion over another person.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, I'm old enough to remember very well the day the ban was lifted. It was too long in coming, and I was tremendously relieved to hear the announcement. In all honesty, it was one of the more memorable days of my life -- right up there with Kennedy's assasination, the Challenger disaster, the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i'm just curious about how it was you knew the ban was wrong without any mormon doctrine telling you so...
do you think doctrine is ultimately subjected to your own personal moral sense?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I guess it would be a matter of what my conscience told me and how I was raised. I just felt uncomfortable with it. If you read the scriptures I posted for Yaddoe in this post, you'll see than the ban appears to contradict them. Since the scriptures are doctrinally binding on us, and we believe them to come from God, I couldn't reconcile them with what, to me, was clearly an exclusionary policy.
I'm going to ask you to rephase that since I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
perhaps this might clarify it for you...
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/118923-morality-religion.html
what i underlined is what i'm trying to say...
waitasec
Veteran Member
well i would argue that neighbor and brother are relative terms...
just like in leviticus 19 neighbor was a fellow tribes man...
it doesn't necessarily mean everyone.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, you clearly believe "religion" to be a four-letter word.
To me, a religion is nothing more than a specific worldview centered on the spiritual and moral beliefs that a group of people have in common. Sometimes, but not always, these beliefs are found in certain written texts these people hold to be sacred. I pretty much feel as if my moral compass is something kind of unique to me. It's based upon what I feel deep in my heart to be right or wrong. I don't need my religion to tell me that certain things are wrong. My sense of morality is kind of distinct from my religious beliefs, but it is -- for the most part -- entirely compatible with what my religion teaches. There are exceptions, one of them being my Church's discontinued policy of withholding the priesthood from Black men, another one of them being my Church's stance on Prop 8 (please lets not open up that can of worms again, at least not in this thread). But what people outside of my Church generally fail to understand is that Church policy and Church doctrine are not one and the same. I can't think, offhand, of any of my Church's doctrines that I disagree with. On the other hand, I can think of quite a number of its policies I take issue with. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense to you, and I'm not sure what I've said so far even answers your question.
waitasec
Veteran Member
Well, you clearly believe "religion" to be a four-letter word.
i don't find that surprising at all. and i find it is very common among decent people, which i think is the norm...
what bothers me about religion is that it also justifies people to do ugly things in it's name because these people believe god is on their side or vise versa...what counts at the end of the day is how one treats people and how one feels about their selves before they close their eyes at night is a relative concept.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Yah, those Aztecs were a nasty people. All those human sacrifices and all...
Then there are all those canibles out there... *cringe*
Then there are all those canibles out there... *cringe*