Last week Deseret News reported on a new film in the works: “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.” Three Latter-day Saints have teamed up to produce this documentary. They hope to present a theatrical release next June to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the LDS Church’s announcement lifting the ban on blacks holding the priesthood. Deseret News reported,
“Before June 1978, the LDS Church had a policy in place that denied the faith’s priesthood to black males. That year, then-church President Spencer W. Kimball announced that he had received a revelation from God lifting the ban, and today the church actively proselytizes to African-Americans. But the history remains a sore spot for many potential converts and some church members.
“Folklore about the reasons for the ban persists in some quarters, and is something the producers — both active Latter-day Saints — are anxious to dispel.
“‘The official answer (from the church) is, “we don’t know why”‘ the ban was in place, [producer Darius] Gray said. ‘And that’s important. It does away with the rationale that Cain killed Abel, or that blacks were less valiant (in a pre-Earth life), or that Noah’s son, Ham, was cursed’ with black skin that marked his descendants as unworthy.
“‘The brethren (top LDS leaders) have disavowed that.'”
Nevertheless, Deseret News reported that according to Mr. Gray, LDS Church leaders have given him permission to publicly “share” his own belief that
“the ban ‘was not imposed by God but was allowed by God’ as a test for Latter-day Saints of all ethnic backgrounds.
“He [Gray] believes it was ‘not a curse but a calling.’
“‘It was a test to see how we would treat one another,’ he said, adding the challenge for all ‘was the same: to maintain the love of the Savior in our hearts for one another. And when that restriction became too much of an impediment for (God’s) work to go forward, there was a revelation.'”
Clearly, this is Mr. Gray’s opinion, not official doctrine. Apparently there is no “official” teaching on why blacks were denied the priesthood. But there are “opinions” which have been expressed by LDS prophets and apostles speaking or writing as Church leaders. One would think the opinions of LDS prophets, seers and revelators might carry a bit more weight than the opinion of an LDS filmmaker. Here are a few “opinions” that may be worthy of consideration.
“Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin … The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 527, 1966 ed.).
“President Brigham Young … said that Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but ‘the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 105).
“…there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
“When He [God] placed the mark on Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation” (Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems–As They Affect the Church, p.15).
“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 father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God'” (Official statement of the First Presidency, August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, 89).
“I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life” (David O. McKay, November 3, 1947, quoted in William E. Berrett, The Church and the Negroid People, 19).
Addendum: The following excerpt from an interview given by Gordon B. Hinckley may also be of interest. This interview originally aired in Australia on November 9, 1997.
David Ransom: Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church?
Gordon B. Hinckley: That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen.
David Ransom: So in retrospect was the Church wrong in that?
Gordon B. Hinckley: No I don’t think it was wrong. It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them.
David Ransom: What was the reason for that?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at that time.
Its interesting to note that in the 2nd paragraph of quotes, Joseph Fielding Smith talks about how Brigham Young spoke of Joseph Smith saying that the blacks arent black because of being neutral in the pre-existence, but are black because Cain had committed the sin of Murder.
Then, in the third quoted paragraph, he goes on to say that we all were given an estate in the pre-existence, and that because the blacks weren’t obedient to the laws that were given to us there, thats why they are black.
So is Joseph F. Smith disagreeing with what Joseph Smith said was the reason about blacks? Why would he preach a false doctrine on the origins of black people?
If my sources are correct, his view (the third paragraph) came out in a book that was published in 1956. Joseph Smith’s take on the origin of the black race, quoted by Brigham Young, was in book that Joseph F. Smith had wrote in 1931.
So within that 25 years, Joseph F. Smith decided that Joseph Smith was wrong.
Which prophet should one believe? Does it matter to your salvation? Probably not. But wouldn’t it be nice if the two prophets of God spoke of the same things? Or does God tell people different stories?
I find it interesting that a few themes keep coming up as I read about and study Mormonism. One is the unBiblical pre-existence of man and the associated man to god doctrine and another is the contradictions and lack of continuity of thought regarding the church’s teachings on major issues (among the leadership). Another aspect of Mormon culture/thought that I observe, is the willingness of the leadership to dump significant doctrine when the doctrine proves too controversial. Plural marrage, as I understand it, was a high calling and necessary to get to the celestial kingdom. The leadership booted it when pressure was put on them. I remember vividly when african american college football players were refusing to play against BYU and maybe U of Utah. That african american priesthood denial doctrine suddenly hit the scrap pile. I get a kick out of that last one it’s like “How did that (rule)get in here? I don’t know. I just turned around and boom, there it was. Well we certainly don’t need that now do we? No, certainly not. It’s out.” Case closed.
Of course, you often hear mormons point out that Christian churches have a pretty poor record when it comes to racism as well, which is true. The difference is that Christians for the most part recognize that church sanctioned or even tolerated racism is wrong, yet mormons cannot because to do so calls into question their priesthood leaders. It is the same with many doctrines that are aberrant. To decry the doctrine is to decry the prophet, so mormons are forced to defend embarrassing things like polygamy and racism to maintain the illusion of divine authority in Salt Lake City.
Your right on the mark regarding institutional racism that has existed in churches of all stripes across this country. That’s why Billy G. evangelistic crusades were so unique in the south. He wouldn’t allow segragated seating from the earliest days of his ministry. The Mormons are stuck with this denial of the priesthood thing and won’t be able to shake it.
I am eagerly awaiting the inevitable defense of the Levites exclusivity in the priesthood as an excuse for labeling an entire race of people “less valiant” descendent of Cain.
Arthur Sido is correct: Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones.
In other words, theological racism is the last subject evangelicals ought to bring up.
Jeff said,
Which prophet should one believe? Does it matter to your salvation? Probably not. But wouldn’t it be nice if the two prophets of God spoke of the same things? Or does God tell people different stories?
I understand where you are coming from, Jeff, but when you consider that prophets are to be God’s mouthpiece, the channels of His truth, then it is a very serious issue. Yes, even concerning one’s salvation. God chooses his prophets. I am sure that all Mormons would say that their prophets are chosen of God, but claiming to speak for God when you are not is a grievous transgression indeed. Mormon prophetic history is filled with contradictions (e.g., polygamy was a grievous sin, now it is a divine principle). One of the proofs that these “prophets” are not of God is, as you say, “God [telling] people different stories.” It is not so much what one believes about black people that affects one’s salvation. Rather it is what one believes about the prophet that made the statement. If he, being a prophet of God, can be in error or have his teaching rescinded concerning this one prophecy, does this not bring into serious question his other prophecies and teachings?
Most Mormons who have posted on this blog don’t seem to think so. I find this interesting given the fact that Mormons make much of restored authority. They proudly claim Aaronic im Melchizideken (sp*) priesthood authority. I am constantly challenged by LDS missionaries to defend my authority for preaching the Gospel. I find this rather strange given the cavalier attitude some Mormons have toward the words of their own prophets. Many of the quotes of past Mormon prophets are not insignificant statements made at insignificant events during some insignificant time in history. Are we to believe that Mormon prophets are authoritative only when they affirm the generally accepted beliefs of Mormonism, and to be dismissed when they utter embarrassing or contradictory statements?
Sorry, I minister in another language and I inadvertently slipped it into my last post. Aaronic “im” Melchizideken should be Aaronic “and”
I wonder how the black woman Jane Manning felt when she was denied from receiving her endowment and instead was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity as his servant.
I wonder if the First Presidency thought she would address him as “massa” in the Celestial Kingdom?
Hehe. Nice jab Aaron. (Actually made me chuckle.)
But seriously, the elephant in the room isn’t the racism or lack thereof among individual Mormons (or any other Americans) in the last 200 years. The elephant in the room is the racist version of God that evangelicals preach about. You know, the racist Jesus as taught by evangelicals who basically hates all Arabs, Asians, and Jews so much that he has them born in circumstances that basically preclude them from even having the opportunity to believe as evangelicals do? So according to evangelical theology Jesus is the worst racist of them all. Not only that, but he cruelly acts on his racism by sending nearly all of those poor Asians, Arabs, Jews, etc to be burned alive for all eternity after he caused them be born in the wrong (non-Christian and particularly non-evangelical) culture in the first place. That is the worst kind of racist.
See what I mean about throwing stones in glass houses?
Ouch, that’s funny to you? Doubly sad.
God never punishes a person for something they don’t deserve. His impartiality in justice is shown by the fact that he “will render to each one according to his works…” (Romans 2:6-11). Race never gets someone off the hook at final judgment.
Geoff,
I love ya Buddy but you’re starting to sound like Johnny One Note. Let me put it to you straight as far as Mormon prophets, especially the first one, this is an invented religion, not a restored one. The reason the prophets are all over the ball park is because they’re not prophets. I know you love your religion and that’s fine, but please don’t insist that it restored first century Christianity when it bears no resemblance to the clear writings of the apostles. It’s a proposition that is easy to check by a simple reading of the Bible. Your hostility and anger towards the Gospel of Jesus Christ really points out a frustration which is born of something that has you by the throat.
Geoff said:
I’m going to do something now that you will not like; I’m going to challenge your statements directly and I’d like you to address them directly…fair enough?
“Jesus is racist” – explain how you come about that knowledge.
“Jesus hates Jews, Arabs, and Asians so much that He purposefully had them born into circumstances where they would not hear the gospel” – explain how you come about that knowledge.
You are throwing up smoke screens that have nothing to do with the issue at hand which is the “moving target of Mormon doctrine” and specifically blacks and the priesthood.
The bible is available to all…you can read it for yourself. If you have a direct quote from it that you’d like to discuss, feel free…we’d love to hear it. If not, then you’re just doing what every other Mormon that I’ve talked to does (and as a street evangelist I’ve talked to a few)invent rabbit trails to dodge the question at hand.
Well it only made me chuckle because it was silly Aaron.
Falcon, in this thread I only wanted to briefly point out the hypocrisy of evangelicals patting themselves on the back and taking potshots at Mormons over racism of all things.
As for my one-note thing lately — I certainly want evangelicals to continue to worship Jesus and to continue to study the Bible. I just suggest they find a different Christian theology to follow — one that does not insist Jesus will only show long-term love and mercy to a tiny handful of mostly Americans in the eternities. I think that part of evangelical theology is probably deeply offensive to Jesus himself because it paints him as a cruel and unmerciful and racist tyrant. (I realize you would probably never be a Mormon — but at there are lots of Christian theologies that aren’t as objectionable as the evangelical version of Jesus.)
As for my choice in religions — I go where God tells me to go (and the deeper I dig into Mormon theology the more I find reasons to believe). I listen to the prophetic counsel of the prophets who God has told me are prophets. I fully recognize that prophets are only prophets when they are acting as prophets. All the rest of the time they can have personal opinions just like anyone else has personal opinions. I certainly don’t think prophets or apostles have ever been infallible in 100% of their comments. Rather, I think God is at the helm of his church now as he was anciently and God allows his earthly church leaders a lot of leeway (including some mistakes on occasion) in their administrative choices as long as his overall goals and purposes are being fulfilled.
Geoff,
Did you forget me? I asked two direct questions; and am waiting for two direct answers.
We make no excuse for what the bible teaches. If people do not like what it says, we cannot apologize and change it, it stands as God’s word.
I’ll be here when you’re ready to address my two questions.
Robert,
Sorry, I didn’t see your response before I composed that last comment. Just briefly — Those were logical conclusions. The logic is pretty straight forward.
1. Evangelicals believe that pretty much only evangelicals will be saved from an eternal hell. (From what I can tell evangelical theology holds that certainly no non-Christians will be saved from eternal hell and many Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, liberal protestants, Mormons, etc) won’t be saved either.)
2. The vast majority of Arabs and Asians are not and never will be Christians of any variety in this life, let alone the evangelical version of Christianity. Rather they are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
3. Most Arabs and Asians will never even be given a real opportunity to even hear about any kind of Christianity in any remotely persuasive way that might lead to their conversion. In many countries Christianity is not even tolerated.
4. Jesus decides where and when everyone is born.
5. Therefore, in evangelical theology Jesus hates Asians and Jews and Arabs so much that he assigned 99% of them to be born in countries/families/cultures that make it virtually impossible to become evangelical Christians in this life.
6. That means nearly all Arabs and Asian are virtually fated from before their birth to wind up being resurrected and tortured forever. Jesus made this happen according to evangelical theology. They did not choose to be born into Iran or India or Indonesia or China or Thailand or wherever.
So no, it is not smokescreen I am talking about. It’s simple logic. I keep waiting for an evangelical to say “Oh, there is a big misunderstanding! God’s grace and mercy and wisdom is so great that there is a way for even non-Christians to escape and eternal hell in the eternities to come. And he still remains just doing it too!” But so far not a single evangelical has done that. Maybe you can be the first?
Geoff said
Geoff man, come on, read your Bible, when it was simply Adam and Eve, no other Human, their were no false religions. These false religions were started by men and women who hate the gospel, they do not like the free gift of grace alone so they make their own religion, how is that Gods fault.
Then I bet you will say as an LDS member you believe and follow the same Gospel Paul preaches correct?
Well your Church teaches it is the only true church upon the face of the earth, all others MIGHT have some truth, but are still incorrect.
So Do you admit, Islam, JW’s, buddist, hindu Ect preach or teach the Mormon gospel? I bet you will say they have a different Gospel. If they do and you believe the gospel Paul preached, then we come back to Gal 1:8-9, these religions that were started by men are preaching a different Gospel than what you believe or Paul taught, So where do these religions go after death for teaching a gospel other than what Paul taught according to Gal 1:8-9?
And not that you care, but I agree with Falcon, you seem to have a hatred of Jesus and the Gospel. Rick b
Ok…
This is off topic..but how in the heck do you quote someone? is there an html code to use?
Geoff,
I think I understand what you are trying to say with your continuous assertion that the Evangelical God is Racist, but you are mis-interpreting lots of things. There is a HUGE difference between being racist and being perfectly, completely holy. I remember being taught that the Mormon gospel was more merciful than the Evangelical because it allowed for men to pull themselves up a ladder of good works towards the Celestial kingdom, but really all it does is cheapens God’s Holiness. Over and over again scripture proclaims the Holiness of the Lord, and also that, because of this holiness, He is unable to even look upon sin. If even “our righteousness is as filthy rags,” the sins we confess to must be even worse, and make us fully separated from God. This is all mankind, not excepting Americans or Arabs or Frenchmen or…whoever. God did not have to step in this world as Christ to do anything about it, but He chose to out of His mercy and kindness, and it is our decision to honor that sacrifice or not. He testifies of this work, not just in the Bible that a few have, but in creation and within men’s hearts. All mankind is in the same boat, no matter which continent they are on, and are given the choice to turn their hearts towards the Lord or not. Now, how that may work for someone in the Amazon who has never officially heard of Jesus or the Bible or any of it, I don’t know and I believe that God has asked me not to make that kind of judgment call. I trust Him as able to care for all His children, and also able to testify sufficiently of Himself again through creation and the inner knowledge of Him that all men have.
The God of the Bible is not racist. He is Holy. Men are racist, sinful, full of errors, and many church men have fallen right in that pit. Praise God, the Church does not stand or fall on crummy human leaders, but rests on the double bedrock of the Lord’s complete, extreme holiness, and awesome, incomprehensible mercy and grace.
Chloe: Now, how that may work for someone in the Amazon who has never officially heard of Jesus or the Bible or any of it, I don’t know and I believe that God has asked me not to make that kind of judgment call. I trust Him as able to care for all His children, and also able to testify sufficiently of Himself again through creation and the inner knowledge of Him that all men have.
Great answer. I heartily agree. God is gracious and merciful enough to find a way to provide his grace to even non-Christians somehow in the eternities to come.
The problem is that your charitable opinion is contrary to standard evangelical theology. You might want to consider finding a Christian church that actually agrees with you on that subject.
Geoff,
What you are advocating is a theology called “universalism” which pretty much appeals to people who can’t handle the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So they come-up with something else. It feels good. It’s very appealing. What’s really cool with universalism is that a person doesn’t even have to admit he’s a sinner. And if your not a sinner why would you need a Savior? Dead in your sins is the term we nasty no good hateful want to send everyone to hell Evies call it. In universalism a person might admit to being alittle sick but not dead.
I like the way you give your prophets so much leeway. I can’t imagine what it would be like to play baseball with your prophets. First of all they would be continually changing the rules, secondly they would want endless “do overs”, and lastly they’d keep yelping “it doesn’t count”. Some prophets! How long are you going to make excuses for them and realize they are speaking out of their own imaginations. Things get hot and they just get a new revelation.
Oh by the way, God leads me also and isn’t it amazing how he’s leading us in different directions. He led me to the cross where I received my redemption through the Blood of His Blessed Son Jesus Christ.
Robert,
My daughter tells me you can do italics by typing [I] which is bracket…the word I….and another bracket. Then you type your stuff and at the end type bracket back slash the word I and another bracket [/I] Ok I’ve tried it and she says I won’t be able to see it until I post it so here goes.
Robert,
It didn’t work. So much for all that college tuition I’ve been paying for the kid!
Falcon,
I’m not advocating actual universalism where everyone gets a free ride to heaven no matter what. Rather, I’m advocating a more just and fair kind of theology where every person gets a fair chance to learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ and then freely choose to accept or reject it. Whether that happens here on earth or after this life is not all that important as long as everyone gets a fair chance. Evangelical theology vehemently denies that everyone will get that fair chance even though the Bible talks about things like spirits being taught in “prison”:
Mormonism has answers to these questions. I don’t know for sure, but I assume there are other Christian schools of that that have answer for them too. The general theology embraced in evangelicalism apparently does not.
Geoff, your issue has been dealt with elsewhere on this blog. You’re starting to act like a troll. Next time a thread is hijacked we’re going to start deleting comments.
Robert,
The you need to use carrots “” and the start of the phrase you want to change and then again at the end with “” at the end.
So for italics it would look like this (with carrots instead of brackets): [i]your quote[/i]
Bold is: [b]your quote[/b]
Blockquotes (like I just used in my last comment) are: [blockquote]your quote[/blockquote]
Robert, to quote some one type this is,
Then after you type blockquote quote in the brackets like that, type it again at the end of the quote. but after you put in this symbal Make sure they are all one no spaces or it will not work. Hope this helps. Rick b
Alright Aaron, I’ll stop. I simply wanted to point out that it is hypocritical for evangelicals to take potshots at Mormons about racism. But people keep asking me questions about it.
(I am starting to sound like an anti-evangelical aren’t I? What kind of weirdo would devote himself to being “anti” some other religion after all… 😉 )
Well just as I posted mine reply Geoff posted his, and I see on mine it wont post the symbal to be used, shows my lack of skills. Well I tried to help, sorry it was messed up. Rick b
Geoff, were not taking potshots, we simply looking at what LDS prophets have spoke. If I said BY spoke and said…
But he never said what I said he said, then I would be a liar and trouble maker. But if I say BY said
And quote the source to prove he said it, then how is that a potshot? Rick b
Challenging the issue that Mormon leaders won’t unequivocally denounce things like the curse of cain … is a pot shot?! Wow, Geoff, what an insult to your fellow black Mormons. Is this part of the collective Mormon shrug I always see? Such an indifference is appalling.
I encourage everyone to read the above addendum to the blog post.
Aaron,
I read it and I kind of did the “What’s wrong with these people” back and forth shake of my head. I would sure hate to be a Mormon and have to defend not only the history and theology of their church but also the leadership. It’s quite enlightening to read/hear the accounts of exmormons after the veil of deceit has been lifted. We’re dealing with a spirit here.
Aaron,
In fairness to Geoff, you were the “troll” on this post. It started when you took a potshot at Joseph Smith. This is, of course, no surprise to me as the mask of “love” and “respect” isn’t hard to see behind on this site. Think I am wrong? Just go back a couple of days and see how you all treated a guy named “Clark”. Way to welcome him!
Burt T., if you think that’s an irrelevant “potshot”, you are missing the point. What happened to Jane Manning was simply awful, and is directly relevant to the post. I’m not aiming at an irrelevant pot to hijack the thread. I’m aiming at the heart of an older Mormon theology current Mormon leaders won’t own up to and unequivocally denounce as sinful, incorrect, unbiblical, and heinous. That’s the whole point of the post, if anyone seems to have forgotten. Mormon leaders are cowards and are too in love with the precious image of their hierarchy rather than explicitly repudiate the “curse of Cain” teaching. And apparently many are too in love with their beloved Joseph—the one who is “mingling with gods”—and other early leadership to own up to what happened to Jane Manning.
And just for the record, I’m happy to shoot at the ugly pots called “Mormon history” and “Mormon theology” any day. They are filled with something far worse than dirt (cf. Ephesians 5:11-14).
Again, I would encourage everyone to look at the addendum to the blog post (seen above). Hinckley’s response is telling.
Aaron,
Thanks for trying to get us back on topic. Don’t know if it will work though. Let’s try to get back to the discussion of this thread (i.e.,the history of denying the priesthood to blacks, and the 1978 revelation. I learned something new- there is no official (authoritative or scriptural) basis for the LDS denying the priesthood to blacks (as per David Mackay’s comment at the end of the above article) up to 1978. This amazes me! If this is true, then why was it practiced by the LDS for so many years? Perhaps some LDS contributors can help me out.
I was just thinking about the historical aspect of this, having read quite abit about the preCivil War vitriol in our country. One member of congress was severely beaten right on the House floor. I believe he eventually died of his injuries. So put that together with the Bloody Kansas episodes, and basically the prewar war in Missouri, it’s not difficult to see how African Americans were denied the priesthood in the Mormon church. Even people in that era who were antislavery debated whether or not “negroes” were intellectual equal to white people. That was a big part of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Not to get too off the wall here, but I have heard the opinion expressed, and I think there is some validity to the argument, that the hatred of African Americans that led to segragation has a sexual basis i.e. white men not being able to tolerate the idea of an African American male having sex with a white woman. Hope that’s not too off the wall sounding. Thought I’d put it in the mix.
Aaron,
You proved my point. MRM can hide behind a mask of love if that makes all of you feel better. However, you cannot mock and belittle what I and others believe in, and love us at the same time. Your lack of respect is appalling. Is this the example that Christ set for us?
Burt T. said: “… you cannot mock and belittle what I and others believe in, and love us at the same time.”
This might just be me here, but I’m pretty sure that what you are passing off as hateful (as in “not loving”) speech is no more than criticism. Criticism is equivalent to disagreement, no? (Might I bring up Jesus and his disagreement with the Pharisees for comparison? I doubt anyone here will say that Jesus was/is capable of hating someone… that IS a sin, after all, isn’t it?)
Aaron,
I was wondering if you could list some sources regarding the whole Jane Manning thing. This is new to me, and I’d like to take my investigations further than this blog post. Thanks.
Alex,
Seriously – the comment by Aaron,”the one who is “mingling with gods”” was no more than criticism? I don’t mind disagreements. I disagree with what most on this site believe, but I don’t mock what they believe. There is a huge difference. Aaron was mocking what I believe.
You’re right, Burt. In that instance, it would appear that Aaron lost his temper and let some things fly (probably out of frustration) that could be offensive to those who believe in Mormonism. I’m sorry for not catching them while skimming through the comments (there are many of them to go through and not nearly enough time). However, if you’re looking for an apology, then it’s going to have to come from Aaron. In any case, people do make mistakes. I think Aaron is entitled to being forgiven as long as he realizes and makes up for his slip.
Burt T.
Just for clarification, were you taking Alex to task with “the one who is mingling with gods” comment because you believe it to be true and you thought he was mocking it or because it’s not what Mormons believe and he was inventing it to misrepresent Mormon thought?
Brigham Young TAUGHT THIS
Since when does this will always be so End?
Then Bruce taught this
If God told them to teach this, why would he Change his mind? Then did God forget people in the OT Had black skin?
rick b
You can learn more about it here.
When people can’t handle the marketplace of controversy, they often revert to associating strong disagreement with hatred. Someday perhaps Mormons will vote for a bill that bans public criticism of Mormonism as a hate crime. Given the propensity of Mormons to identify harsh rhetoric with hatred, I don’t think it’s a stretch.
Sheesh. Aaron is grumpy today.
Was it something I said?
I phoned the PR department of the LDS church about this one. The guy on the other end sent me a paper that offered a few possible reasons (the curse of Cain and neutrality in the pre-existence)but it ended up saying “we dont’know”. Persoanlly, I think “we don’t know” is really “we don’t want to commit to anyone one reason”. If LDS leaders did, the racism that existed in that church for so many years would be made apparent. The reason for denying blacks the priesthood was either: neutality in the pre-existence, the curse of Cain, or good old-fashioned bigotry.
How can you say that the quotes taken from Joseph F. Smith as personal opinion (see my last comments for sources). Through the words they used, it sounded like certainty. If they would have at least put a “it is of my personal opinion, I think, or I believe, then I wouldn’t have any ground to stand on. Here are the two quotes and their starting sentences.
“President Brigham Young … said that Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven”
“…there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there…”
How can you possibly tell me that sounds like personal opinion? One is saying Joseph smith DECLARED, not brought up the notion, mused with the idea of, or any of that. The other said THIS IS THE REASON blacks are black..
Now of course the prophets are still human. But for someone to give “THE” reason behind the colors of humankind, and to not agree with each other, you have to wonder if they are even in the same boat. The issue is that two leaders are giving out different information.
What if the president of the LDS church after Gordon B hinckley were to say that plural marriage wasn’t a revelation from God and denounced it as a false doctrine taught by earlier prophets. You would then have to put into question the founder of your church or the prophet denouncing it. Or, you can do what you did and say it was the new prophets personal opinion. That would probably work out best anyway.
The quotes I gave from BY pose a bit of a problem because, BY said
LAW OF GOD? Since when does a law of God simply get forgotten who told it or why. I guess if your racist views are causing trouble, then you simply do what any false prophet would do, Say I am human, I made a mistake. Even though God told us false prophets are not of Him, or to be listend to. Rick b
Rick,
It seems to me that what these “prophets” were doing was kind of proclaiming things that moved through their mind. Then of course there’s a written record of their proclamations so it becomes problematic (say that five times fast). There is enough of the written record present that the “out of context” argument can be easily answered and refuted. There has to be a great deal of “mind snapping” going on with the LDS folks in regards to accepting the record of their prophets. You don’t question the prophet or leader. Once the erosion starts, the whole mountain side comes down.
I’m honestly asking whoever here is LDS if you take the quotes of Joseph F. Smith as I referenced above as opinion. I bet you wont say its scripture because it doesn’t lie within the standard works. But regardless, they were said (at least in my mind) in a “This is the reason, no doubts about it” type of manner.
Personally, if I were a prophet of God, I wouldn’t give random opinions or reasons for the colors of mankind, let alone any doctrine pertaining to salvation or the identity of God. Anything not coming from God’s own revelation to me, I wouldn’t write in a book for God’s entire following to read and start to think because I am called of God that what I say is of 100% truth. If the current prophet of the LDS church just would come out and say “Listen, all doctrines/writings in any other book besides the 4 standard works are to be taken completely as opinion, even IF coming from the mouth of a Prophet of our church”.
That would help clear up a lot of contradictory evidence within the LDS faith for believers and non-believers. It’s just hard for me not to think that if they are true prophets, no matter what they say (unless the statement starts with something like “I think”) is coming from God’s own revelation to him. If I were LDS I would believe the prophet would never lead me astray (even if the words are written outside the standard works), but throughout history, they have with their random/inconsistent musings.
All,
One of the downsides of affirming our leaders as apostles is that many of their personal doctrinal opinions do get written down and are open for critics to scrutinize and harp about decades and centuries later. Catholics run this same risk, especially with the Pope. Most Protestants are shielded from this risk because no one cares how idiotic some of the things the various Baptist (or whatever evangelicals used to be called) said or wrote or thought were for the last few centuries.
So the easy way for me personally to deal with all of this criticism is to say that sometimes our leaders were wrong in their opinions. I don’t think God ever shows favoritism to any race (something evangelical theology to this day preaches I might add — how come none of you evangelicals seem to be all broken up about that shocking fact?). If some of our former leaders made mistakes, I say whoop-dee-doo. They are all men and God gives even his apostles and prophets leeway to make mistakes in his true church as long as His overall work and goals are accomplished.