History was made at the April 2009 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. During this conference, the LDS Church appointed its first black African as a General Authority. Twenty-three years after joining the LDS Church in Kenya, Joseph Sitati became a member of the LDS Church’s First Quorum of the Seventy. The Salt Lake Tribune reported,
“The appointment is…symbolically important.
“After all, the LDS Church did not allow men of African descent anywhere to be ordained to its all-male priesthood until 1978. Missionary work did not begin among black Africans until after that.”
Tribune journalist Peggy Fletcher Stack continued with a mini history lesson:
“The forgotten continent
Mormon missionaries arrived in Cape Town, South Africa, as early as 1853, but only preached to the British colonists. After all its converts emigrated to Utah, the mission was closed until 1903, when it once again approached only whites. The church slowly grew there and in Johannesburg, until then-President David O. McKay visited several thousand members in 1954.“Meanwhile, Mormon pamphlets and magazines were circulating through Nigeria and Ghana, causing many people to adopt what they knew of this American faith and create congregations on their own. None of this was approved by church leaders in Salt Lake City. Representatives from Utah had to be sent to Ghana to excommunicate members who were dancing and drumming and, on occasion, being led by a woman prophet while calling themselves Mormon.
“Some stayed, though, and were ready for real baptism after the 1978 revelation opening the LDS priesthood to ‘all worthy men.'”
I’m baffled over the fact reported here that the LDS Church didn’t send missionaries to preach the restored gospel to black Africans until after the 1978 revelation allowing blacks to hold the Mormon priesthood. Why is that? Women can’t hold the LDS priesthood, but Mormon missionaries have always considered it worthwhile to preach the LDS gospel to them.
While the Mormon gospel was not preached to black Africans, it is evident that it was okay for it to be preached to some blacks, for LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen taught,
In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection” (Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – as they affect the church,” August 27, 1954, p. 17).
Didn’t Jesus say, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15) and “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20)? Christian missionaries have been fulfilling this Great Commission, taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone — black, white, Jew, Greek, slave and free — since Jesus gave the commandment. Not so with the Mormons and their disparate gospel.
On what basis did LDS leaders think it was okay to disregard Jesus’ Great Commission and restrict their pre-1978 preaching in Africa to whites only?
Again, great bias. If you’re going to criticize
Didn’t Jesus say to not preach the Gospel unto the Gentiles? And it wasn’t until Peter’s revelation, when they Apostles finally extended the full blessings of the Gospel. Gentiles were not to be preached unto, until the Lord directed so. On what basis did Peter and the others think it was okay to disregard Jesus’ Great Commission and restrict pre-gentile-revelation preaching to non-Gentiles only?
Why were ONLY Levites allowed priesthood authority during the time of Moses? Looks like Moses is just as racist as the LDS Church leaders.
There have been several times throughout the history of the Gospel, in which certain groups of people were forbidden the blessings of the Gospel, for whatever reason. Although we may not know the reason why Gentiles were forbidden to be preached until Peter’s great revelation, or why only Levites were allowed priesthood authority and participation in those Aaronic temples, or why those with African blood were not allowed Priesthood blessings before the 1978 revelation, we know God has his reasons, and they are perfect.
Now, let me explain to you why Africans were not sent missionaries before 1978, but black Americans could choose to be baptized and worship in their local ward. It’s quite simple, really. Because Africans could not hold the priesthood, they could not form branches, wards, and stakes in their local areas. Suppose a black African came over to and lived in the States, and insisted upon baptism – he would be granted it, would have attended a local Church, but could not hold the priesthood or participate in temple ordinances. After baptism, Saints still need the sacrament each week, nourishment and direction by their local leaders.
However, the Church continued to send much material and doctrine for their own nourishment, because they asked for it. In fact, some in Nigeria even started organizing their own branch and called it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Thousands gathered together and called themselves Saints, and would teach each other the Doctrines of the Restored Gospel. It was truly inspiring. Despite not being official members, and no ordinances or priesthood leadership – they gathered together and were nourished by the good word of God. Eventually, their dreams were fulfilled, and the full blessings of the Gospel were extended to blacks. I’m sure there was a similar feeling of joy among them all, as there was with the Gentiles when the Gospel was finally spread to them. Yes there have been some exceptions, for whatever reason (e.g. Elijah Abel) – just as there were in Jesus’ time with the Gentiles (the Gentile woman who showed extreme faith). God has his reasons and is no respecter of persons.
I served my mission in Africa. What a wonderful place. I even met Elder Sitati. I’m thrilled we now have a G.A. with African blood.
Sharon,
Just a point of correction – the first Black African to be ordained to the office of Seventy is not Elder Joseph Sitati of Kenya but Elijah Abel in December 1836 – some 173 years ago.
Nevertheless, it is wonderful to witness how rapidly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is growing in Africa. This is because the truths of the Restored Gospel resonate in the hearts of those who have the faith and sincerity to listen to the words of Jesus Christ.
iamse7en,
The old Levite dodge again. First, you are mistaking the Levitical priesthood which involved no magic powers but merely service in the taberbnacle/temple with the mormon “restored priesthood”. They bear no similarity outside of the word “priest”.
Second, the other tribes were not excluded from the priesthood because they were racially inferior whereas blacks were excluded from the mormon “priesthood” based on the alleged inferiority of an entire race. We are told quite clearly that after the Messiah came through the Jews that Christians were to take the Gospel to every tribe, tongue and nation not just the white ones. There is no distinction among Christian, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, salvation in its fullest is extended to all by faith alone in Christ.
The exclusion of blacks was nothing more than 19th century racism that current mormons are forced to explain away because to apologize or recognize it is as racist would be to cast doubts over the bogus apostolic authority claimed by mormon leaders.
The old levite dodge? Haha. No, I am not mistaking the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood with the Priesthood of the LDS Church. You like to draw the distinction there, because you don’t believe that this is the restored Church. Fine – but we believe it is the SAME priesthood. Both were required for service in the Temple. You can, with hubris, smirk about it’s magical powers – then I’d assume you’d also smirk during Jesus’ day about the Apostles’ ‘magical powers.’
You say that the other tribes were not excluded from the priesthood because they were racially inferior – BUT THEY WERE STILL EXCLUDED! That is my POINT. Now, official doctrine of the LDS Church is, we don’t know WHY blacks were excluded. Many have tried to share their light on the subject with regards to their ancestor, covenants, or pre-existence.
YES, the Messiah did make it clear that the gospel would go to every tribe, tongue, and nation – but obviously Gentiles were excluded from that until Peter’s great revelation (Acts 10). You can quibble here, but the scriptures make it quite clear that this is the case. There was even discord among the primitive Church on this very issue.
Peter even referred to the Gentiles as common or unCLEAN – that certainly could be seen as a RACIST comment – but the Peter was enlightened: “God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
Why were the Gentiles not given the Gospel until Peter was directed to? We may come up with our own theories, but the point here is, they weren’t given the Gospel until the Lord directed it. A group of people, a race, were forbidden Gospel blessings until the Lord directed it so. Official Church Doctrine does not teach why the Lord forbid the full blessings of the Gospel from blacks, just he didn’t for the Gentiles.
Go read Acts 10-11 before you talk to me. I have listed two, indisputable instances in SCRIPTURE, where certain Gospel blessings were limited to a group of people.
Whatever criticism you have for the LDS Church for forbidding certain gospel blessings, you should have for Moses and the Apostles.
Regarding Peter’s vision that caused him to bring the Gospel to Gentiles, as before noted, God told Peter, “What God has cleansed you must not call uncommon” (Acts 10:15). As I read this passage of Scripture and place it in context following Jesus’ Great Commission, I see a leader in the Christian church who did not yet fully understand the intended reach of the Gospel. God showed Peter, through this vision, that the Gospel was supposed to be brought to all. The clean/unclean regulations were done away in Christ. Peter responded to the clarification he received via the vision, and the Gospel spread throughout the whole world.
So, is the LDS argument here that for some reason, black Africans are outside the biblical designation of “the whole creation,” “all nations,” or “Gentiles”?
After a long hiatus, I am amazed at the amount of “rehashing” that goes on here. Great comments, iam7.
I have a good friend in central america right now serving as a Christian missionary (not LDS). they report that they are currently “not preaching” the word for fear that those who accept it will be killed. Perhaps Sharon should enlighten them that the regardless of their own judgement, they are in violation of the commandment. Would be as critical of her own? If so, why not go down with them and fulfill the commandment yourself?
This simply comes to the same living vs. written word argument. iam7 brings up the same sentiment that I find everytime I visit here….namely a double standard is almost universal. Those posting might well ask themselves “do the scriptures contradict the concept I am presenting?” Peter and the Gentiles illustrate this well. Nevertheless, God be thanked for living prophets!
st.crispin wrote:
I didn’t consider Elijah Able’s ordination as a Seventy (Third Quorum) in this article due to the following statement by 11th LDS President Harold B. Lee:
If that report corresponds to an actual person who does such a thing, that is one the most reprehensible, repugnant, Satanic, and heartbreaking things I ever heard of. If I met such a person, I would plead with them to preach the word, and if that didn’t work, I would harshly rebuke them as falling into the demonic snare of Satan.
Jesus set his face toward the suffering in Jerusalem to come, not away from it. And Jesus calls all people to take up their cross, not avoid it. Either you’re willing to suffer for the cause of Christ and join the fellowship of his sufferings, or you are not of Christ.
Oh the joy of suffering with Christ. How could one, post-resurrection, have the indwelling Holy Spirit and not join our Savior on the road to Golgotha? Life is all about dying and resurrecting with Christ, in so many ways.
Aaron,
I would be glad to get you their info and you can pass along the word from their good brother in Christ. Maybe they will invite you to join them.
Sharon,
So here is Peter not fully understanding to full reach of the gospel…fair enough. You are then, by admission, willing to say that an apostle of the Lord, despite all good intentions, did not understand everything. So then, at minimum, why can’t you or I afford LDS leaders(assuming they hold the same office) the same latitude?
This is one more of those things that, to my thinking, is a waste of time to discuss with Mormons. The whole Mormon program is based around concepts, principles and doctrines that have nothing to do with Biblical Chrisitanity. These are all things that were “revealed” to Joseph Smith; a noted con man, false prophet, womanizer and an all around disreputable character.
The Mormon program is believed by its adherents based on a “revelation” that they think they have personally received from God. There are numerous Mormon “prophets” running all over Utan and the surronding states having just as goofy of revelations as did Joseph Smith. It’s the lasting legacy of Joseph Smith.
I hate to throw a wet blanket on the discussion, but our Mormon buddies who show-up here all believe they’re super duper priests, wannabee prophets and gods in embryo. They are never going to get it! The ego trip is way too big.
Concerning the “Levitical Priesthood Dodge” even if we grant iamse7en’s conclusion it still does not address the issue, Yes only descendants of Levi could be priests, however that did not exclude members of Judah or Dan or Sojourners of foreign nations to worship YHWH. It certainly did not grant Levi or Israel as a whole exempt from proselytizing. As for the idea that Christ somehow withheld the gospel until Peter’s vision we must all be forgetting His words, specifically in Mark 13:10 though 1-31 is relevant for any conversation about a restoration.
Lautensack
Falcon,
The accusation, by Sharon, is LDS leaders are ignoring a command by the Savior. We then simply point out that they are, at the very least, in company with the ancient apostles, even if they were wrong in doing so. Why not address our response? Why then fly off on a character attack of JS or how we claim to get our knowledge? At least address the inconsistencies. In other words, why should I listen to anything this group has to say, if when concrete objections are raised to accusations, all we get in return is JS did this and that and yada yada
Defender, you asked:
I am merely asking the question: “On what basis did LDS leaders think it was okay to disregard Jesus’ Great Commission and restrict their pre-1978 preaching in Africa to whites only?”
Is your answer, then, that despite Jesus’ Great Commission, Peter’s vision with the biblically supplied interpretation, and almost 2,000 years of Christian worldwide evangelism history, LDS leaders did not understand that God wanted the gospel preached to all Africans, both white and black?
I’d like to take this discussion to how Joseph Smith received the priesthood. That in-and-of-itself ought to tip folks off as to the fraudulant nature of Smith’s priesthood. Joseph Smith operated under “revelation” and “visitation” to drive his doctrine and practice. This guy had more visitations than a Welcome Wagon lady. His restored doctrine and priesthood isn’t in the Bible, thus Mormons down grade the Holy Scriptures. His claims not only stretch credulity, but they are downright laughable. So why even play Mormon games about the apostles yada yada yada!
In issue 62 of Christian History “The Spiritual Journey of Africans in America” is examined. It’s all there, the good, the bad and the ugly. On the positive side: “In 1733, during a local revival instigated by his preaching, Jonathan Edwards noted, ‘There are several Negroes who…appear to have been truly born again in the late remarkable season.’ When the Great Awakening arrived in full-with shouts and groans and spiritual ecstasy-blacks began to swell the crowds coming to hear revival preachers. In Philadelphia, George Whitefield reported, ‘Nearly 50 Negroes came to give me thanks for what God had done to their souls.’ In the late 1740s, Presbyterian Samuel Davies said he ministered to seven congregations in Virginia in which ‘more than 1,000 Negroes’ had participated in his services……..Black Methodism in the U.S. grew from 3,800 in 1786 to nearly 32,000 by 1809. Membership in black Baptist congregations increased as well, from 18,000 in 1793 to 40,000 in 1813……Slaves, when hearing the Christian message, were struck by something that transcended their culture. Many of them described how they were seized by the Spirit, struck dead (so to speak), and raised to a new life. Such conversions took place in the fields, in the woods, at camp meetings, in the slave quarters, or at services conducted by the blacks themselves
That’s just a sample of what can be found in this issue
The only reason I can think why all this happened in the Mormon religion is that I don’t know why, but for many years God spared most folks in Africa and of African descent from the seducing spirit of the false Mormon god. I am glad when I hear that Mormons will not go into and evangelize Communist countries, because as folks emerge from one lie, the last thing they need is to immediately be led into another. Praise God that, for whatever His divine reasons, that He did not allow Mormonism to go forward in these nations and is now keeping it shut out of Communist nations. As Christians, we must teach those believers in Africa, China, etc. the truth so that they cannot and will not believe a lie. We must also pray for God’s spirit to draw all nations to the truth and to thwart the lies of the devil. God’s truth of peace, for all that are His, through the sacrificial death of Christ, His resurrection, and the free gift of salvation through God’s grace purchased with Christ’s blood is so beautiful and awesome that nothing can thwart it – for it is God’s very truth.
A great summary:
“Christianity taught the slaves that God had entered into the world and taken on its suffering, not just the regular suffering of all creatures that grow old and die, but the suffering of the innocent persecuted by the unjust, the suffering of abandonment and seeming failure, the suffering of love offered and refused, the suffering of evil apparently triumphant over good. They learned that God’s compassion was so great that he entered the world to share its brokenness in order to heal and transform it. The passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus began and effected the process of that transformation. It was compasson, the love of all to the extent of sharing in their suffering, that would continue and bring to completion the work of Christ. All of this of course is paradoxical. All of this is of course a matter of faith. American slaves accepted that faith. And in doing so they found their lives transformed. No, the suffering didn’t stop. Many died while still in bondage. ….They transcended slavery becuse they believed God made them in his image with a dignity and value that no slaveholder could efface.”
The power of God’s Spirit is so strong that even the evil of slavery could not stop the slaves from coming to Christ. Mormons themselves are in slavery but it’s to a gospel and a form of religion that cannot save them. We can only pray that God through His mercy will bring them to a saving knowledge of His grace.
Mormons have a never ending number of empty rabbit trails that they would like to have Christians chase down. In reality this technique keeps Mormons themselves from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mormonism begins and ends with Joseph Smith. He created the priesthood, claiming visitation from a couple of apostles who put him on to the office. Joseph was famous for his visitations including the angel with the sword that threatened to kill him if he didn’t begin to practice polygamy. The guy was nothing if not creative.
But our Mormon friends want us to run all over creation taking up, once again, one of their goofy claims. No thank you. It all begins and ends with Joseph Smith. None of what he claims to have restored, including the priesthood, ever existed in the first century Church. He was a false prophet. It’s tough for Mormon men to let go of this belief in Joseph Smith. It’s their whole life; priesthood, prophet status and finally godhood. But in the end, nothing!
iamse7e
Claims that Matt 10:5 shows that “certain groups of people were forbidden the blessings of the Gospel” are false. This is the nicest thing I can say.
Without looking at the meaning of this text we know that clearly this verse cannot be used to exclude people based on race because of the rest of Matthews Gospel. As Christians we beleive in progressive revelation in the Bible, not regressive. Matthews Gospel also proclaims the great commission to spread the Gospel to all nations (Matt 24:14; 28:19), it also has examples of Gentiles of faith the Wise Men (Matt 2:1–12) and the centurion (Matt 8:5–13). Matthews quotation of Isaiah 42:4 in Matt 12:21 shows that Matthew does not know a Gospel based on race.
So if we cannot read racism into Matthews Gospel How are we to understand this verse? I think that Paul explains it for us in Romans 1:16 “…first and also to the Greek.” Christ is fulfilling his covenantal faithfulness to the children of Abraham. It is as simple as that, God is sending to gospel to his chosen people first. After this there are no holds barred. All the nations (Romans 10:12; Gal 3:28).
I think that you should also reread Acts Chapter 10. Of particular interest is that it was not Peter who extended the Gospel to Cornelius. In Acts 10:34-43 Peter is acknowledging the lesson that the Gentiles should hear the Gospel when The Holy Spirit descended on the Gentiles (Acts 10:44, 45), before baptism, before Peter laid hands on them. It was not Peter who extended the Gospel it was God. I am not saying this to belittle Peter, I am only pointing out the obvious.
So many misinformed people here.
First, Lautensack said:
“Concerning the “Levitical Priesthood Dodge” even if we grant iamse7en’s conclusion it still does not address the issue, Yes only descendants of Levi could be priests, however that did not exclude members of Judah or Dan or Sojourners of foreign nations to worship YHWH”
Wow. Kinda shows how badly you miss the point. BLACKS COULD STILL WORSHIP JESUS. You need the priesthood to worship? The POINT is, that certain groups of people were FORBIDDEN the Levitical Priesthood! End of story. Spin it how you want, but we’re not the first people in the history of the Lord’s Church to do that!
gundeck:
Spin it however you want, but the text is quite clear in Matt 10:5: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles.” Yes, as is with all things God, scripture, or revelation, it’s progressive! Obviously, Gentiles were not preached unto, UNTIL AFTER Peter’s great revelation. Let me make this quite simple: The Apostles were given specific direction not to “go into the way of Gentiles” for whatever reason, and until Peter’s revelation, Gentiles were not taught the gospel. In other words, a group of people had to wait until their time had come. We don’t know the reasons, we only know the timeline of facts. Keep in mind, that Blacks could still be baptized and follow the Gospel – just barred from the priesthood.
Since you understand revelation is progressive, you should know that quoting Rom. 1:16, in context, refers to a time period AFTER Peter’s revelation. What did Peter learn from the revelation? “God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” And this was learned by all the Apostles. Very silly argument.
Also, I never said that Peter converted Cornelius. You’re quite silly. I said that Peter is the one who received the revelation that the Gentiles should be preached too as well (because he was the head Apostle). I know my Bible pretty well. I spent several years using it to prove Mormon doctrine correct.
Let me call a spade a spade. Certain parts of OT religious practices were limited to certain groups. Only the sons of Aaron could do certain things. Only the Levites could do certain things. Also entering “the assembly of the LORD” was off limits to certain ethnic groups, in addition to those with other issues (Deut 23:2). Some people need to build a bridge and get over this very unPC fact.
However, the differences between these Biblical prohibitions, and Mormonism’s ban of people of color in the priesthood (not just blacks,) are huge. First, as mentioned already, this ban as part of the “restored gospel” seems to be a step backwards. The simple gospel of Paul opened up all the things of God for everyone regardless of his/her ethnic group. It was the later, “restored gospel” that made ethnic distinctions again.
Also, it should be pointed out that nowhere in the Bible is it stated that heaven and hell are contingent are one’s access to the temple, priesthood authority, etc. (unlike Mormonism).
Lastly (and this is my biggest point), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official reason as to why people of color were banned from many LDS religious practices. A while back I called the PR department and I was sent a letter, and I conversed with an official rep over the phone, as to the reasoning or where the authority to ban blacks came from. No straight answer was given. He said that the “curse of Cain” and the lack of valiancy in the pre-existence were possibly true but were conjecture; thus, they were not the official reason why blacks were banned. Nobody really knows for sure he said. So large swaths of humanity were banned from the things of God for no apparent reason. At least in the Bible I can point to the chapter and verse for such restrictions. So one is left with the curse of Cain, the lack of valiancy in the pre-existence, or good old fashioned racism as to why blacks were denied the priesthood.
I would like to address a few inaccuracies. Mobaby wrote:
This is an inaccurate statement. The simple reality is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had a long-established presence in former East Bloc countries (Eastern Europe). The LDS Church is growing quite rapidly in former communist countries such as Russia and the former Republics of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia etc.), Mongolia, the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Only in the reclusive country of North Korea is the LDS Church barred (along with all other religious denominations).
The LDS Church (along with all other Christian denominations)is barred from proselyting in most Islamic countries (i.e. the Middle East, much of North Africa, Pakistan, Iran etc.). Nevertheless, there are LDS branches in many of these countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the U.A.E. These branches in Muslim countries are composed almost exclusively of LDS ex patriates from North America, Europe, India and the Philippines. I was member of the Doha, Qatar branch for several years.
Thus we see that the work of the Lord is moving forward.
For some reason the quote from Mobaby was not included:
I would like to address a few inaccuracies. Mobaby wrote:
“I am glad when I hear that Mormons will not go into and evangelize Communist countries, because as folks emerge from one lie, the last thing they need is to immediately be led into another. Praise God that, for whatever His divine reasons, that He did not allow Mormonism to go forward in these nations and is now keeping it shut out of Communist nations.”
This is an inaccurate statement. The simple reality is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had a long-established presence in former East Bloc countries (Eastern Europe). The LDS Church is growing quite rapidly in former communist countries such as Russia and the former Republics of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia etc.), Mongolia, the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Only in the reclusive country of North Korea is the LDS Church barred (along with all other religious denominations).
The LDS Church (along with all other Christian denominations)is barred from proselyting in most Islamic countries (i.e. the Middle East, much of North Africa, Pakistan, Iran etc.). Nevertheless, there are LDS branches in many of these countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the U.A.E. These branches in Muslim countries are composed almost exclusively of LDS ex patriates from North America, Europe, India and the Philippines. I was member of the Doha, Qatar branch for several years.
Thus we see that the work of the Lord is moving forward.
The reason that our Mormon male friends come streaming out of the woodwork when ever there is any mention of the Mormon priesthood, is because that’s were the Mormon boys get their authority from. No priesthood, no authority. Then they’re just your average Joe Dokes. OUCH! Can’t have that. We have the Mormon trifecta that Joe Smith used to attracked men to his religion: priesthood authority, personal revelation from God, and futures as gods with their own planets to rule. Now, throw in multiple wifey babes with which to have endless sex forever and ever and WOW could any man ask for anything more?
So our Mormon buds run to the Bible and try to find anything……anything that they could possibly link to supporting their practices including not letting blacks have the priesthood. I wonder if this has anything to do with polygamy? Why would I ask such a stupid question? Well seeing we’re into linking any thought to support a practice lets try this. Were the Mormon leaders going to let a black man have multiple wives including some possible white women?. WHOA WHOA WHOA Is this goofy? Possibly, but not anymore goofy than our Mormon posters trying to find some Biblical justification for their institutional racism.
We know the Mormon priesthood history and it was institued because Joe and one of his buddies said an angel (who later became John the Baptist) annoited them into the lesser priesthood. Later, as the ever changing story goes, three of the apostles showed up and laid the advanced degree on them. This is right up there with people who try to sell bagels that look like the image of Mary on ebay. The real reason the Prophet came up with the priesthood was because he was starting his new religion and he needed some authority. The “appearances” by heavenly creatures worked as well as his magic rock in the hat trick, so why not go with it.
It’s amazing how Mormon men are willing to trade in their brains and any sense of spiritual discernment for ego fullfillment.
iamse7en wrote: Wow. Kinda shows how badly you miss the point. BLACKS COULD STILL WORSHIP JESUS. You need the priesthood to worship? The POINT is, that certain groups of people were FORBIDDEN the Levitical Priesthood! End of story. Spin it how you want, but we’re not the first people in the history of the Lord’s Church to do that!
I think you missed my point, I actually was not saying that was a problem with forbidding the priesthood to African’s in theory, perhaps I wasn’t clear on this, but the point of my statement which you seemed to miss was that “it [lack of ability to grant the priesthood to anyone outside the tribe of Levi] certainly did not grant Levi or Israel as a whole exempt from proselytizing” which you failed to account for. Why did I make this point? This is exactly what your church did. They were against even preaching the “restored gospel” to Africans. That is what my problem was with. As Paul wrote, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
Lautensack
iamse7en,
Read your bible again, Cornelius went to Peter not the other way around. God was in control as always.
How can you attempt to use Matt 10:6 as a reason to exclude people based on race? Don’t you realize that Matt 24:14; 28:19 came chronologically before Acts 10, Romans 1:16 and for that matter the Mormon Church? Is it your position that God chose to conveniently change his mind and exclude people of color to coincide with views that predominated the United States in the 19th century?
I find your argument hard to fathom. You are using Matt 10:6 to argue for a racially based system in the 19th century, ignoring the covenantal promises that God made to Israel, and also ignoring the clear teachings of Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; Acts 10:44, 45; Romans 1:16; 3:22, 29; 9:24; 10:12; 15:12; Gal:3:28; Eph 2:18-22; 3:6; Col 3:11 etc.
In Matt 10:5, 6 ff. Jesus Christ sent out the disciples on there first independent mission with focus on the Israel, fulfilling his covenantal promises and OT revelations. What you are also ignoring are the conversions and miracles preformed by Jesus for Gentiles. John Chapter 4 is illustrative of this fact, while the initial focus was on the Jewish people it was not to the total exclusion of Gentiles.
There is another problem with your “BLACKS COULD STILL WORSHIP JESUS” line of thought. It fails to take into account the Mormon view on the necessity of the priesthoods for earning exaltation. So not only did your prophets and apostles explicitly exclude people of color from the priesthood but they implicitly excluded them from full exaltation. Nice!
No, if there is any spinning going on it is not coming from this direction. Gods word is clear on this subject. He has made a free offer to all nations. Your prophet chose, for whatever reason (see David Whitsell’s comments), in the context of the 19th century to exclude people of color from your priesthoods and from your version of exaltation.
Crispin,
I understood from a Mormon friend years ago that Mormons would not participate in any underground or illegal Churches. This excluded the Mormons from spreading their religion in many Communist nations – praise be to God! Christians, who believe a higher authority than the state – God’s command to spread the gospel – overrides unjust national laws, thus the gospel went forward in the former Soviet Union, and despite much persecution, goes forward in the People’s Republic of China today. Unless the LDS have changed their policies, I don’t think there are underground Mormon congregations in these nations where believers are persecuted and where the Christian faith is deemed a threat. And essentially the Mormon religion cannot be practiced underground – the temples would stand out, making everyone ask – what’s that and what do you do in there? To which the state police in these nations would not take kindly to “it’s a secret.” I do think God protected and is protecting these people, keeping deception of God’s people (and others) from occurring by using a deeply unjust and evil state government for His own purposes. Why did God protect nations in Africa and Communist nations from deception? I don’t know. But, today, despite changes in the Mormon Church the residual effect of past LDS doctrines making certain people groups second class citizens at best or even rebels against Jesus in the “pre-existence” (as has been espoused by Mormon leaders in the past) thus forever excluded from true participation in the religion is on-going. Seeing this past history of false doctrines and institutionalized exclusion cannot help but make these nations suspicious and keep many from falling for the lies.
Through Jesus, God has and is calling all nations to Himself. God never revoked this scripture. Joseph Smith did revoke these verses for the religion he created. God is sovereign, using all things for His purposes.
So I got to wondering, was St. Augustine black? So I did a little looking around and I guess he just might have been black. One source said his mother (St Monica) was black. I came up with a list of black saints. Very interesting stuff. But remember this, everything was lost when the original apostles died. We don’t have any evidence that everything was lost of course but that’s the beauty of revelation and heavenly appearances and of course second sight vision. These things neatly fill-in the gaps when evidence is not forth coming.
So I guess what happened is that the apostles didn’t ordain blacks to the priesthood but when the priesthood was lost then a bunch of these black interlopers had the audacity to even become saints. It’s a good thing we had Joseph Smith and his subsequent prophet boys to straighten all of this out and get these uppity blacks back in their place. Can you imagine……BLACK GODS? Well that’s what happens. Letem become priests and the next thing you know they’ll want to be gods!
Hay wait a minute…….just one minute here! What about the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8:26-40. One of my all time favorite accounts of a conversion. If the guy was from Ethiopia, he probably was black…..right? The guy’s reading out of Is. 53.7, Phillip is led by the Spirit to witness to him and BANGO, he gets baptized right on the spot. Don’t you love it? Power Evangelism! So, was the Ethiopian Eunuch refused the priesthood? No! Why not? Because there wasn’t any in the first century church. OOPS….forgot revelation to the Mormon prophets said there wasn’t any blacks in the priesthood and then another revelation said that there was???????or that there could be now???????they couldn’t do it in the first century and not in the 19th century but now it can happen in the last part of the 20th? I love revelation. Everyday is a new day. I know this is true because the apostle Paul said something like “all things have passed away and I press on”…..there’s my Bible reference to confirm it. Man this is a hoot……a person can just make it up as they go along. What’s not to like about being Mormon and doctrinally ahhhh should we say flexible?
Falcon,
I thought about the Ethiopian Eunuch but I figured that the they would take this as the first sign of the apostasy.
MoBaby,
I would like to clarify a few points:
1. Since 1991 with the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and subsequent breakup of the U.S.S.R., communism as an economic ideology really only exists in hermitic North Korea and Cuba – a relic Soviet client state. The People’s Republic of China is a thoroughly bourgeois, capitalist-minded country notwithstanding the fact that the Communist Party of China maintains a monopoly on the exercise of political power in that country.
2. The LDS Church has many missions, stakes, and wards in Eastern Europe and Russia. I was a member of the Moscow 2nd Ward when I worked and lived in Russia in 1992. Since 1992 the LDS Church has grown dramatically throughout the Former Soviet Union (F.S.U.)
3. Christianity has been preached and practiced in Russia for close to 2,000 years. It is speculated that some of Christ’s apostles were preaching the Gospel in various cities on the coast of the Black Sea. Moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church has been a pillar of Russian society since the 11th century.
4. The LDS Church has an operating temple in Communist China by virtue of the 1997 handing over of Hong Kong from the British to China.
5. Unlike many evangelical sects, the LDS Church does not engage in illegal activities.
6. It is and has always been the great commission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. To this end the Church each year sends out over 50,000 volunteer missionaries who are called to preach and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These missionaries are sent to all countries throughout the world except for those (such as Islamic countries) where Christian missionaries are forbidden from proselyting.
What other church even comes close to this level of evangelizing?
I hope that these points clarify some misconceptions.
gundeck,
What do mean? That evangelizing blacks would be considered by Mormons, in this example, to be a sign of the apostasy? If this is what you mean, Mormonism as practiced by the Salt Lake City bunch and their FLDS cousins is deeper in the dark hole of spiritual confusion than even I could imagine. Man, somebody buck me up here. We’ve been assigned an impossible task in bringing some clairity to these folks…..at least in the natural man.
Falcon,
It was an attempt at a joke. Recently everything seems to be a sign of the great apostasy.
Crispin,
I have no misconceptions.
I am sure you are aware there was a time in Soviet history which ended about 20 years ago when Christians were persecuted and Church activities were illegal? Many were imprisoned. Notwithstanding a 2000 year history, the Soviets were brutal to Christians and sought to destroy the Church – even going so far as to rename cities which carried the names of Saints. This was not that long ago, although I know history is not taught much in schools and the current generation in school knows little of the 20th century. Yet, the gospel went forward in the underground Church.
Paul preached and was arrested and thrown in prison, likewise Peter – they broke unjust laws because a law which forbids the gospel is not applicable. The blood of the martyrs often paves the way for God’s truth – as it is in China today.
It is not just Evangelicals who have an underground Church in China, there is also an underground Roman Catholic Church and I am sure the Lutheran Church is there(are they considered Evangelical?) and Presbyterians (likewise, what is your definition of Evangelical?). When I was in Beijing, you had to show your passport to go to Church indicating that you were not a Chinese citizen – so it’s still very much suppressed and persecuted. Missionary work is still illegal, even if sometimes tolerated, meaning they can come down on them anytime they want. There are currently people in prison in China for being Christians. Say what you want, that’s persecution. I think you know, but Hong Kong has a special exemption on many things and is treated differently than the rest of China.
I think you understand my point, the gospel of Jesus Christ goes everywhere, while the Mormon religion does not go to certain nations, and has forbidden full participation, and today is not attractive, to those of Africa and African ancestry – thereby sparing many. I believe you’re #6 is contradicted by the very premise of this article.
Sharon,
I don’t know what they did or did not understand. Your premise, obviously, is that they are not true apostles, that this is just another evidence to show such. My point is you cannot make this argument without nullifying Peter at the same time. If LDS leaders didn’t understand you could not criticize them any more than Peter. After all, how could Peter mistake a direct command from the Savior? and if it was possible why not treat them the same?
If the restoration was needed, why would you expect LDS to follow some a Christian tradition of teaching all people or to follow any established practice if they considered it possibly flawed or unauthorized?
Darn those “profits” who wrote books, and darn those Journal of Discourses…they ruin everything…
“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so WHILE TIME ENDURES. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a BLACK SKIN and have been DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIESTHOOD and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to FEEL THEIR INFERIORITY and have been SEPARATED from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, ‘and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE.” Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 101-102, 1931, emphasis added.
“You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race — that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
Free,
Are you new here? Let me clue you in on something. None of what you wrote about the “profits” counts because it was said along time ago by some dead guy. I’m sorry it’s just the way the Mormon religion and Mormon revelation works. Everyday is a sunny new day with revelation in Mormonism. The revelatory flowers are always in bloom and their sweet fragrance fills the air. The beauty of this is to be appreciated and never questioned. Nothing counts! Evidence doesn’t count. The historical record doesn’t count. For the Mormon it’s just smile, don’t question anything and pay your tithe.
Mormonism looks more dark and disgraceful every time stuff like this is brought up..
I think one way we are fortunate in mainstream Christianity is that we can repent for the sins of the past. The Southern Baptist denomination has quite the racist history (now there’s an understatement), but they have been free to acknowledge their denomination’s sins of racism and oppression against African-Americans and to wholeheartedly and publicly repent (which they have done). Mormons aren’t quite able to do the same thing, because of the way their whole religion is set up with God speaking directly through their prophets/presidents. So, even though Young’s ugly words are contained in the Journal of Discourses and are not specifically doctrine, they are still words spoken by a prophet and are harder to brush away and ignore.
On another note, I am thankful for the way that God used Martin Luther, and I am whole-heartedly able to support his insights of grace vs. works. However, he was quite the anti-semite, which was unfortunately symptomatic of his time. I am free to embrace the truth that Luther highlighted, but I am also able to wholeheartedly reject his anti-semitism and call it what it was: Sin with a captial ‘S’. Mormons don’t have this same freedom, and are left scrambling to explain away the racism of Brigham Young and others.
I wonder what Young would think of blacks holding leadership positions in the present age? Even more importantly, I wonder if any of those sweet, unsuspecting Mormon converts in Africa know that Young labelled their dark skin as a sign that they had been ‘less valiant’ in the pre-existence?
So if being “white and delightsome” meant you were valiant in the pre-existence, then it would stand to reason Jesus wasn’t all that good in the pre-existence.. not saying he was black, but he must have been a little trouble maker.. Being from where he was, they weren’t exactly ghost white like you see the guys in the general presidency.
Jeffrey, that is a good, but funny point; one that I hadn’t thought of. Jesus wasn’t black, but he almost certainly had at least dark tan or light brown skin. Of course, there are those racist white supremacist “Christian” groups in the US who believe that Jesus and the apostles were white, and a branch of them somehow ended up in England…the Lost Tribe of Israel people I believe.
Falcon,
Actually everything counts! In fact, BY or JFS opinion has much more weight than anything this blog has to offer. What you are promoting is unorganized chaos. We have an official stand on what constitutes scripture. All else is opinion, although pretty good ones.
How is Christianity any different? Are you willing to accept all statements by any Christian in the world? No because sooner or later you will run into your rival who will rebuke you, condemn you to hell, tell you your church is a “Synagogue of Satan” because he feels your doctrine is incongruent with his interpretation of scripture. Thus, in your world, everything is right or wrong, as you deem fit. That is the way that the Protestant world works.
Mobaby,
To address some of your misconceptions:
1. I have quite familiar with Soviet history and the repression of the Russian Orthodox Church. Indeed, I have friends and colleagues who survived the murderous pogroms of Joseph Stalin. For instance, Anna, my housekeeper of many years grew up in a small village in the eastern part of Ukraine. She witnessed the execution of her father, brothers, and uncles (in fact most of the adult males in her village) by Stalin’s thugs during the brutal repression of the Ukraine in the 1930’s. A few years later the German Army invaded the Ukraine under Operation Barbarosa. At first the Germans were seen as liberators freeing the Ukrainians from the barbarities of Stalin. However, one of the first things the Germans did when they reached Anna’s village was to round up all the Jews (many of whom were childhood friends of Anna) and then kill them. The Germans took Anna back to Germany where she worked in a labour camp for four years. Decades later (1996) I helped Anna fill out the paper work to seek reparation from the German Government for her WWII interment in the German labour camp.
The primary persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church occurred under Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror from 1924 to 1953.
2. The Roman Catholic Church has operated in China since the 13th century. Likewise the Anglican and the Lutheran Churches have operated missions, churches, hospitals in China since the 1800’s. I have an aunt who was an Anglican medical missionary in China for 32 years.
I have travelled on business to China many times and I have visited various Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches in cities such as Hog Kong, Shanghai, Qiing Doah, Jinan, and Beijing. Christian worship is permitted in China under the Communist regime provided that worshippers abide by the strict State guidelines. The problem arises when certain evangelical groups deliberately disregard these State guidelines.
Continuation.
There are many LDS service missionaries serving in mainline China.
The policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been to “obey the laws of the land”. As Latter-day Saints we know that the Lord will open the doors of the nations when the time is ready to have His Gospel preached in that land. We have witnessed this time and again.
The great commission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is and has always been to preach to gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people in every land. This will be done in the Lord’s own due time and way. To this end the Church each year sends out over 50,000 volunteer missionaries who are called to preach and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Given the limited resources of a relatively small church this is a truly remarkable achievement.
I ask again what other church can match the LDS with this level of commitment to spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Mobaby,
You stated that Mormonism “is not attractive, to those of Africa and African ancestry”.
This is another gross misconception. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is growing dramatically through Sub-Sahel Africa.
I have a friend who served as a medical missionary in Zimbabwe. He reported that the only construction going on in the entire country is that of new LDS chapels. That fact alone, in and of itself speaks volumes.
“I ask again what other church can match the LDS with this level of commitment to spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”
The Assemblies of God. It was started in 1908 and it has more adherents than your church. How about the Gideons or the Wycliffe translators? Has your church ever been the first to reach a people group that has never heard of Christ?
Your church is a speck in terms of history and scope. The fact that your church obeys the laws of the land, even if it means altering one’s theology (like in 1890), is not a desirable trait. What is even less desirable is your church assumes that the U.S. law of the land is what should apply world wide. But we are getting off
topic . . . Does anyone care to show me chapter and verse where the ban on blacks in the priesthood came from?
“This is another gross misconception. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is growing dramatically through Sub-Sahel Africa.”
Do you think B. Young’s statements regarding blacks are attractive?
You may not know this, but there is an underground Roman Catholic Church is China (in addition to Evangelical Churches). The Pope will not allow the communist party in China to dictate who the Bishops,etc. are or how the Church is run. When the state anywhere dictates how a church is to be run, it is never good and cannot be tolerated. Witness – Nazi Germany – came in and took down the crosses, put up a swastika, and took the Bible out of many of the German Lutheran Churches. To their discredit, many just let this happen. To their credit, some did stand for the gospel, too bad many more did not stand against the laws of the state. I know you have no crosses or crucifixes, but imagine if a government (anywhere) came in to the LDS buildings and dictated that the Book of Mormon must be removed and also dictated the types of rituals permitted in your temples. This is acceptable? Abiding by ANY LAW? If so, it shows a great weakness.
Those in China who are persecuted are indigenous missionaries and ministers, not outside missionaries. They should just sit by and not practice their faith in Christ? If they do not speak, God would raise up someone else. God has chosen them as martyrs for the faith, just as He has in the past in other nations. Why does God’s work go forward this way? I don’t know, but we see it in the Bible and we see it in history that the truth of Jesus goes forward often under persecution. Commitment to Jesus Christ and Him crucified must always be bigger than any commitment to state or state laws.
I must agree with Whitsell, I cannot see how the past statements of the LDS concerning blacks could be attractive to Africans or those of African descent. There’s a reason Mormons are thought of as fair skinned with blond hair, it’s a stereotype that most often is true. My particular denomination has more active members in Pakistan than in the US, so if you did a composite, we would look very different from a Mormon composite.
Also, I was in China about 1 1/2 years ago. We attended an international Christian Church. Local Chinese citizens were not permitted to go to the service. If the Church did not enforce the rules, they would be shut down. Is it truly a Christian Church when the state dictates what you must and must not preach?? It’s a good question to ponder.
IamSe7en wrote “Gentiles were not preached unto, UNTIL AFTER Peter’s great revelation.”
That’s an incredibly misleading statement.
What was Israel’s purpose as the chosen people of God? Why did God call them out of all the nations to make them his treasured possession if it was not to declare his glory to the unconverted?
We see this in the covenant with Abrahamic, in which God promises a blessing to all the peoples of the earth (Gen 12:3). We see this in the didactic statements in the Psalms
“Declare his glory among the nations,
his marvelous deeds among all peoples.” (1 Chron 16:24, Psalm 96:3). We see this in Simeon’s reaction to the infant Jesus “For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.” (Luke 2:30-32). What was Jonah doing in Ninevah, if it was not proclaiming the Gospel?
All this was happening long before Peter’s correction in Acts.
It was Israel’s job to “witness” to the nations the glories of God right from the beginning. Fast forward to Jesus’ time and we find his contemporaries already sending out missionaries. It seems, however, that they were preaching the wrong Gospel; to quote “”Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” (Matt 23:15).
Here’s the tricky part. Why did Jesus condemn the Pharisees for sending out Missionaries, and what was it about their Gospel that turned their converts into “children of hell”? Surely the Pharisees were teaching the Bible?
It seems to me that the Pharisees were doing pretty much the same thing as the current LDS movement. I imagine that Jesus would say the same thing now as he did then.