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?
Regarding the Church in China, I heard an intriguing story from a missionary friend of mine who is working in Central Asia. He tells me that there was a small, but accepted Christian community in China, which was wiped out, along with many other minorities, by Ghenghis Khan in the 12th Century AD. Legend has it that the only time that the Emperor was seen in public without his royal robes was when he took them off to worship at the Christian Temple.
My friend adds the footnote that when Hudson Taylor met with such success in China, much of it could be attributed to the earlier Gospel work of the many, many anonymous Christians who had “tilled the ground” before him.
Some have commented above on the spread of the LDS movement in Zimbabwe. All I can say is that these Zimbabweans have obviously not heard the “Gospel” of Brigham Young…
…but neither has the current LDS movement, as far as I can tell.
Finally,
I don’t know about the other posters here, but I am really, really looking forward to that time when peoples from every tribe and nation are reconciled and assembled in the worship of the Lamb. That vision in Revelation 7:9 gets me smiling every time I think of it.
And to think that this will not be achieved by our efforts to impose uniformity, or to export certain cultural values, or to persuade people to participate in secret Masonic rituals. It is achieved by the blood of the Lamb, which reconciles us to God and which reconciles us to each other. End result – there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for [they] are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Humanity, in all its wondrous diversity, is brought together in Christ. Christ himself is the basis for our reconciliation.
And we could justifiably add to Paul’s summary “black or white or yellow or whatever”.
The Gospel of the Bible blows away racial boundaries. In contrast, the Gospel of the early LDS movement institutionalized racism and sexism.
Well, it is Sunday afternoon and I have come back from Church and I though to myself I might as well respond to a whole slew of “misconceptions” presented here on this board about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
1. While Joseph Sitati is the first black from Africa (Kenya) to be ordained to the office of a General Authority the first General Authority who of Black of African origin was Helvecio Martins of Brazil. After Martins received the priesthood and received his temple ordinances, he served as a bishop, a counselor to a stake president, and as a mission president for the Brazil Fortaleza Mission. In April 1990, Church President Ezra Taft Benson called Martins as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Martins thus became the first black general authority in LDS Church history.
Elijah Abel is somewhat of an anomaly and enigma in LDS history. In March of 1836 Elijah Abel, a former black slave, was given the priesthood and ordained to the office of Elder. This ordination was reportedly done by Joseph Smith himself. In December of 1836 Elijah Abel was ordained by Zebedee Coltrin. There is some dispute as to whether or not this ordination to the office of Seventy was revoked by Joseph Smith.
2. Mobaby writes: “There’s a reason Mormons are thought of as fair skinned with blond hair, it’s a stereotype that most often is true.”
This is an obvious “misconception”. While there may have been some truth to this statement 50 years ago when the majority of Mormons lived in the western U.S.A. and were primarily descendants of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian pioneer stock this can hardly be said today. If you were to attend an LDS ward in Sao Paulo, Brazil, or Lagos,Nigeria, or Manilla, Philippines, or Taipan, Taiwan, or Ulan Baatar, Mongolia you would not see many Caucasian faces, let alone blonds! There has been a tremendous demographic shift in the LDS church over the past 30 years. Today, most LDS members live outside the U.S.A.
Mobaby,
Most of the wards I have lived in here in Australia have a large contingency of people of Pacific Islander origin. The ward I live in at the moment has the least from that origin that I have seen for a while, but we do have something like 20 – 30 people of Sudanese origin. They are quite welcome and mix very easily within the ward. Our Relief Society president for the past year and a bit is West African in origin. We also have quite a few Asians in my ward at the moment as we are in a university area. So the blond hair blue eye stereotype you are referring to certainly does not fit here in Australia.
Sorry, I had to take a break as my home teachers dropped by for a visit,
3. David Whitsell writes: “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.”
David, really, am I to presume that you think it is a “desirable trait” that a church which professes to be Christian should disobey the laws of the land? That seems rather perverse.
David Whitsell further writes: “What is even less desirable is your church assumes that the U.S. law of the land is what should apply world wide.”
David, really, would you care to back up such an absurd statement. It is apparent that you are neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar and really do not know what you are talking about.
Continued,
4. Martin from Brisbane writes: “the Gospel of the early LDS movement institutionalized racism and sexism.”
Presumably you are referring to the restrictions of the LDS priesthood,
Martin, I must ask you, do you personally consider God to be a racist and a sexist? Consider the fact that the Aaronic priesthood in the Old Testament was only given to:
a. males
b. the descendants of Levi
The Melchizedek priesthood was even more restrictive.
What? no women, no Chinese, no Malinese, no Indians, no lapplanders, no Inuit. Wow! Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ by your line of reasoning must incontrovertibly be blatant racists and a sexists.
I fail to see the complaint here. You are asking why the LDS would not teach to the black people in Africa until the ban for the priesthood was lifted. It makes logical sense that if the priesthood could not be given to the black people then there would be no local authorities. Without local authorities there could be no church organisation. Without a church organisation people would then go into apostasy, as was reported above. It has nothing to do with prejudice or bias or whatever you want to call it. Without local priesthood authority there was no way the church could support the local members spiritually and temporally so there was no logical reason to teach the people at that time. Once the priesthood ban was removed, local leaders could be called and then the church could be organised properly to fully support its members spiritually and temporally.
What I am finding truly amazing is the chasm between the two faiths. They are not remotely similar, except the use of the name of Christ.
Ralph just explained how the souls of Africans were nto important enough to bother with until the ban on the priesthood was lifted.
OK, I give that it might make sense to you, but what the necessary implication suggests is that they were not important enough to save.
You can couch in whatever you wish, but this is true, and with that is the also necessary conclusion that it is based on nothing but race.
Someone mentioned Constitutional questions, and this would fall under strict scrutiny of thr SCOTUS. Strict Scrutiny is famously known as being “strict in scrutiny and fatal in fact.” Ergo, it would be shut down by the court.
in the end, there are only two possibilities as to what could drive the seed of Cain doctrine: God, or racism and since God cannot be racist….
MichaelP,
I guess that you did not go to interpretation school. I did not say that the Africans were not important enough to bother with – I said that because of church resources it was not viable or possible to organise the church there. If they migrated to a country with the church organised within then they could be baptised if they wanted. So they are/were not excluded just because they were black.
I said that there was no priesthood leaders in that country and because of the ban of the priesthood at that stage there could not be any unless they were white. Now in a country like Africa where apartied was rampant at that time, it would be seen as being analogous in structure if only white were allowed leadership positions. So both white and black people in Africa missed out on the church being taught, though there were a couple of small times where the white people were taught then told to move out.
But we do believe that all people will get a chance to hear and accept the LDS church either in this life or the next. It did/does not discriminate against a country that does not have the gospel being taught in it like traditional Christianity does. Those people who did not have the gospel taught to them will receive that chance later, as you well know. They are just as important and their temple work will be done for them because of their importance.
So I never said they were not important – I just said it was the wrong time. And as the Bible says – there is a time and a season for everything. If the church’s resources are spread a little thin at a point in time, then it can’t do everything.
Ralph, no, I think you fail to understand.
You are saying it was the wrong time to ignore an entire group of people? Come on, you are smarter than that.
Another point in this last post of yours is this: “If the church’s resources are spread a little thin at a point in time, then it can’t do everything.”
Are you saying God cannot do everything and is in fact limited? That is what I get out of what you said.
As LDS move out of Utah, there will be more and more throughout the world. They no longer feel constrained to stay in “Zion” and are spreading out across the US and the world. I have read reports (it’s been awhile) that the active rate among non-Utah Mormons (both converts and LDS from family lineage) is very low. Often converts in South America and Mexico may attend their Ward meetings for awhile and then just quit, perhaps having never participated in a temple ritual. Temples sit idle much of the time in some areas of the world (much like some of the great cathedrals of Europe which sit idle and almost unused). I suspect there are still a lot more anglos who are active Mormons than any other people group.
I see no answers to my question regarding the state coming in and dictating what can take place in temples and removing the Book of Mormon. You would just go along Crispin? You seem to think that the Chinese Christians who get cross with the state are wrong for obeying God rather than strict state laws – would you submit to the subversion and practical elimination of your faith practices? I think those in Nazi Germany who just acquiesced to the demands of the government were absolutely wrong – and God’s Spirit was not in that decision.
On the racial bigotry -I predict in the not too distant future there will be a time when it will be deemed that the discrimination against blacks and the teaching of the “dark skinned” not being valiant in the pre-existence will not have ever been taught -it will be wiped away out of existence, having never really been official teaching -and any references will just be things that Mormons will say “we can’t know or understand what those statements meant, but the LDS church has always fully welcomed those of African descent” while those in the Fundamentalist LDS sects will remain true to Brigham Young. Men are fickle, racists, and bigots – God is not.
I read of a Latter Day Saint who said something like “Brigham Young was a huge mistake for the LDS Church” and reading here on Mormon Coffee about Adam God, Racism, and Blood Atonement I wonder what theological ideas he came up with that the LDS STILL embrace. BY does seem to be a giant blunder that the LDS are still trying to overcome.
I pray that more and more LDS eyes will be opened and they will embrace the one true God and rely not on their own works but on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross – the blood atonement for all of our sin, and find salvation by grace through faith. Truly set aside Brigham Young and his false teaching, open up to the truth of God – given for all races, nationalities, people groups, men, women, and children. I received this twitter tweet from THE Lutheran Study Bible this week, and thought it was great “do not let the evil one lock Jesus in the past or reduce His ministry to you now. Boldly pray to Jesus, and acknowledge Him as your Lord.”
MichaelP,
Did I write ‘God’ in there? Sorry if I did, I meant ‘Church’. Oh wait – I did write ‘church’. So once again you are putting words into my mouth.
I have never equated ‘church’ with ‘God’. Church is the human side of things. Yes, God can do all things and anything He wants but we humans cannot. We are limited in many ways. God works through us humans and when He wants to He can assist us to go beyond our means. But as I said, the Bible teaches about times and seasons for everything. If its not the time, then God will not push things further. He is the one in control and we do His bidding. It all comes down to revelation from God through His prophets.
After being on this blog for around 3 years, the main 2 problems I can see that you have with our church is 1) a living prophet – because all of your comments usually come back to modern-day revelation; 2) Works and faith and grace and salvation.
All I can say about these are 1) we believe that God has only one person He will communicate His intentions through as no man can serve 2 masters and a house against itself will not stand. You believe that anyone can interpret God’s will even if it is different for another person as long as they believe in the Trinity and faith alone. 2) Faith in its own definition requires works – we believe that a person is saved on the day of judgement because of their faith made manifest and alive through their works. You believe that one is saved because they believe then they have the works of faith.
I see a lot of bragging about the spread of Mormonism throughout the world. I can see from their point of view how they would think that’s a good thing, but it only takes a thorough reading of revelation to get from it the prophecy of a famine of God’s true word.
Of course, Mormons already believe the “apostasy” has happened, while Christians believe it is yet to come. The Bible speaks of our world only getting worse and worse until the tribulation and the Anti-Christ.
It would make sense that Mormonism would be THE major religion in the world. While LDS believe that would be wonderful.. to me, it would be a sign of the end of this world.. Chew on that a while…
Jeffrey,
Am I wrong? But I thought for sure that, at least the Presbyterian church, issued an official statement saying that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, the man of sin revealed. This was years ago and so that would mean that we are already here. I’ll see if I can hunt down the official statement. Nevertheless, even if Protestants don’t believe in a “Great Apostasy” they must already believe in a “Partial apostasy” or they would all be Catholic, right?
Good to hear from you again. By the way, I looked through you relative’s (I believe that is correct) website re: the BoM. Was hoping to find some more substantiative claims. Oh well.
Martin,
I guess I am amazed at the irony of your statement
“don’t know about the other posters here, but I am really, really looking forward to that time when peoples from every tribe and nation are reconciled and assembled in the worship of the Lamb. That vision in Revelation 7:9 gets me smiling every time I think of it.”
So who is going to institute or authorize these people to wear the “white robes” described in Revelation? Are you sure that you won’t be appalled at the palm braches they are holding? What is going to convince you that this is a legitimate, wholesome activity and not some occult ritual? These are the kind of double standards that I just don’t get here.
St Crispin wrote “The Melchizedek priesthood was even more restrictive.”
True, it only had one member – Melchizedek.
That’s part of the point isn’t it? Its unique, a one-of-a-kind, without precedent, without leaving a dynasty, unable to be repeated, peerless, singular. These are all the unique qualities of the priesthood of the Son of Man.
The irony that LDS claim to have replicated an un-replicatable priesthood pushes the whole idea into the oxymoronic.
There’s a more robust explanation. Knowing that they could not re-institute the Levitical priesthood (maybe it was the painful issue of circumcision that put them off), Joseph Smith and his cohorts looked around for another lineage, and they thought they found it in Melchizedek. It sounds plausible, right up to the point of why the Bible refers to the priesthood of Christ as being “in the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4 and the five quote in Hebrews, starting with Hebrews 5:6).
“David, really, am I to presume that you think it is a “desirable trait” that a church which professes to be Christian should disobey the laws of the land? That seems rather perverse.”
Not all laws should be obeyed period. If it is the early 1940’s in Nazi Germany you lead an insurgency. If it is the 1770’s in America you revolt against King George. The American Revolution was at times referred to as the “Presbyterian Revolt”. If it is the 3rd century, you do anything but offer incense to Caesar
. . . even if that means death. Sometimes articles 11 and 12 of the articles of faith are in opposition.
“David Whitsell further writes: ‘What is even less desirable is your church assumes that the U.S. law of the land is what should apply world wide.’
David, really, would you care to back up such an absurd statement. It is apparent that you are neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar and really do not know what you are talking about.”
Your church altered its teachings and practices in response to the Edmunds-Tucker Act. What was once an major part of the Latter-day Saint movement, plural marriage, went by the wayside to get the feds off the back of the Mormon church. However, this was only an American law. Mormons could have had a mass immigration the way they did to Utah, but they did not. The church leaders chose to conform to a bogus law (one that was later repealed). Some Mormons, including quorum of the 12 members, chose to break the law after 1890.
Your church took its reversal on polygamy internationally. Even if it is allowed in another country, Mormons are not supposed to enter into polygamy. Honestly, how can you use the “obey the laws of the land” cop out when polygamy is legal in much of the world?
It is my understanding that Mormons will not prosyletize people groups that have high rates of polygamy (kind of how they used to avoid preaching to blacks before the ban). Does anyone in the know about LDS missiology care to comment on this?
DOF wrote “So who is going to institute or authorize these people to wear the “white robes” described in Revelation?”
The white robes of Revelation don’t refer to the togs LDS wear in their Masonic rituals, but rather the righteousness of Christ, which they have “put on”. I find the question of authorization difficult to compute because they don’t need authorization any more than the earth needs authorization to orbit the sun. What they are doing is what people do when they encounter God, which is to worship Him.
The question implies that the Church has some role in instituting or authorizing who can stand before the throne and who can’t. But we don’t see any evidence of this role in John’s vision. The whole show is run by Jesus, for Jesus and through Jesus.
“Are you sure that you won’t be appalled at the palm braches they are holding? What is going to convince you that this is a legitimate, wholesome activity and not some occult ritual?”
No, I won’t be appalled. The waving of Palm Branches is the way the Jews heralded their anointed King, rather like the way a footie supporter waves his team’s colors.
I apologize for forgetting how woodenly some people interpret scripture. To me, the poetry and imagery of John’s revelation just does not make sense if I try to read it too literally. For example, how can a double-edged sword come out of Jesus’ mouth (Rev 1:16)? Surely this is a metaphor for the Word of God. Likewise the white robes and palm branches and the standing before the throne are metaphors for the orientation and behavior of the community of the redeemed.
What I find most intriguing in the crowd before the throne is the way that they get united. I say this because religion cannot possibly unite us.
What I mean is this; if I succeed at being religious, then I have done something my neighbor has not done and the difference will always divide us. I will be proud of my achievements, and the only way my neighbor can join me is to conform to me. If my neighbor wrongs me, then I can stand on my God-given rights and demand retribution.
If, however, I am saved by grace, then my achievements count for nothing and I am humbled to the same level as my neighbor. This means that I am no better then my neighbor, so I have no justification to demand that he conforms to my expectations. The grace of God also covers his wrongdoing against me. When John writes that Christ carried the “sins of the world” (1 John 2:2), I read that Christ died for my neighbor’s sins against me so that I am no longer required to demand retribution. In fact, God’s forgiveness of us drives us to our forgiveness of others, and without forgiveness there can be no reconciliation.
Can you begin to see how much the cross of Christ means to the reconciliation of humanity? Not only are the all the sins that I have committed been paid for, but also all the sins that have been committed against me. We are no longer captive to vengeance; we can escape the cycle of violence and retribution. The consequences of sin are not diminished; in fact we see them exposed in their unmitigated gory detail the body of Christ at the cross. However, God’s perfect love and perfect justice are perfectly met by this perfect act of selfless love and justice.
Its the cross of Christ, and Christ alone, that unites the crowd. This is what prompts the elders and cherubim to sing “You are worthy… because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people” (Rev 5:9), followed by the angels and every creature in heaven and earth.
St Crispin also responded to an earlier comment of mine (“the Gospel of the early LDS movement institutionalized racism and sexism.”) with “Presumably you are referring to the restrictions of the LDS priesthood”
No, I am referring to the mandatory polygamy in the “Gospel” of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, which effectively relegated women to the means by which men achieved exaltation. And the “mark of Cain”, which excluded black people from meaningful ownership of the church. In either case, women and black people are regarded as chattels.
Its not just a theoretical position. One only has to look at the way Joseph Smith “acquired” some of his fellows’ wives to see how it got worked out in practice.
I always find it amazing as to how evangelicals love to tell blatant falsehoods about the LDS Church, its doctrine, people and history.
The latest example of such blatant lies is the one above where Martin form Brisbane writes:
“In either case, women and black people are regarded as chattels” by the LDS Church.
This is a complete and utter falsehood with no basis whatsoever.
1. The LDS church has been at the forefront of the women’s suffragette movement in the U.S.A. Indeed, Utah was one of the first states in America to grant women the vote. It was the LDS women’s Relief Society which was at the forefront of pushing for voting rights for women.
2. Many if not most of the early converts to the LDS Church held strong abolitionist views regarding the issue of slavery in the United States. It was these strong abolitionist views which clashed with the slave State mentality of the Missourians in the 1830’s and was one of the main reasons why the Missourians violently persecuted the Mormons in their State and drove the Mormons out at gun point.
3. Consider this: it was the American evangelical churches (Southern Baptists, Methodist Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church of the Confederate states) which openly advocated the defense of slavery and provided the theological, moral and intellectual underpinnings of slavery in the United States. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed over the issue of slavery in 1848 as were Methodist Episcopal Church in 1843 and the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States in 1861.
In contrast, the LDS Church explicitly denounces the same slavery of blacks that was so embraced by American evangelical churches. In a revelation in 1833 in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) Section 101:79:
“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage on to another.”
These points alone put the lie to Martin’s vile assertion that ” women and black people are regarded as chattels” by the LDS Church.
Ralph, I know what you said, but consider this question: who leads your church– men, or God? If it is God, aren’t we supposed to step out in faith and trust that he will provide?
But if it is men, what would drive such a decision. One option is a trust in God. Another is racism. A third would be business decisions. Others could be fear, lack of desire, and other emotion based reactions.
But lets address the first three. First, trust in God would suggest that God told you not to go. But, some problems– God is not racist, and such a trust would mean that all the other people who went over there were wrong because God had not allowed it yet.
Second, racism abounded when JS founded his church. This is a possibility, is it not? I know the claim is that he was not, but despite this claim, the very notion of the seed of cain is racist at its core. Whatever other reason is given, this is necesarilly a part.
A business decision: this is the claim you seem to make. But does God concern himself with that? Doesn’t he want us to step out in faith, no matter what? If it is of God, he will provide a way, right?
So, it is clear you did not think Africa was worth the effort or important enough for God to care about.
And you do say that the church is not led by God but by men, or that the church is man’s side of it. But this is a huge difference between you and us. God is our church, and he rewards even churches who go out of their way to trust in God. In other words, our responsibility is to always walk in faith in God and not in the restraints of men.
BTW, my beefs with your faith go far beyond what you list…
The LDS were leaders in women’s suffrage? I wonder why that was? Oh, more LDS voters….I get it.
“Many” early LDS folks held abolitionists views. I wonder how many “many” is. I think it would be accurate to say that “many” early LDS folks held monogomous points of views as well as monotheistic points of view. Their views didn’t make there way out to Salt Lake City. I wonder how many of those “many” early LDS folks who held abolitionist views became members of what is today known as the Community of Christ or Temple Lot sects (as well as many other “true” restored Mormon sects). We known the route the Utah Bringhamites took when it came to polygamy and blacks and the priesthood. I’m guessing that the monotheists, the monogomous and the racially tolerant, didn’t make the trip out to happy valley. I’ll go a little more investigating regarding the Community of Christ and Temple Lot and these matters. I kind of like the Community of Christ. They actually have a tolerance for all sorts of diversity of thought, it seems to me anyway. For Mormons, that’s very refreshing.
DefenderOTF,
It is Luther and Lutherans who make the argument that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and they make some good points. By rejecting the core of the Bible, salvation by grace through faith and exalting a man the Roman Church is seen as apostate. By some of these same standards and others the LDS Church would be seen as falling in line with the Anti-Christ religion – rejection of salvation by grace through faith, worshiping a false god, exaltation of a man (even singing hymns about him). Acts 15:10-11, Ephesians 2:5, Ephesians 2:7-9, 2Timothy 1:9, 1John 5:13, Romans 5:1-2, Romans 8:1-3, Romans 8:33-34 are just some of the verses that teach and point to God’s saving grace. The Bible in it’s entirety is a treatise on salvation by and through God given means of grace and faith, and not by our vain efforts and works. Rejecting this message is rejecting God’s message to every one of us. Anyone who confounds, obstructs, or denies this message is listening to the lies of the evil one.
Mobaby,
While Martin Luther may have been one of the first to call the Pope the Anti-Christ, this virulent anti-Catholicism is pervasive amongst many American evangelicals (i.e. Pastor John Hagee, Bob Jones, and their ilk) and appears to be an ingrained part of their warped theology.
There is something very pernicious and truly malevolent about these evangelical pastors and churches which seek validation through viciously attacking other faiths (i.e. Catholicism, Judaism, and of course Mormonism).
In as much as the white protestant churches of the American South provided the theological, moral and intellectual underpinnings of institution of slavery it is from this same group that the Ku Klux Klan sprung and found fertile soil during the American Reconstruction and was and still is a blight upon the soul of America (see Pastor Thomas Robb’s WhitePride.TV).
From a personal perspective of having lived in Oklahoma (attending graduate school at the University of Oklahoma) I was surprised and even shocked at just how racially segregated were some (but not all) evangelical congregations (Southern Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians). This racial segregation in white protestant churches is pervasive through most of the American South.
Given the existence of such blatant racial segregation in southern evangelical churches I am agog at the evangelical charge the the LDS Church is racist. Unlike the evangelical churches, the LDS Church has never practiced racial segregation amongst its congregants.
Thus it is hypocrisy in the extreme for evangelicals to claim that the LDS Church practices “institutionalized racism” when their own sordid history of racial oppression is dripping with the blood of lynched negroes.
Now that I am all riled up on the subject of the sheer hypocrisy of evangelicals taunting that the LDS practice “institutionalized racism”; I feel like quoting the Jesus Christ in Luke 6:42 who decried:
“Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”
Now that I am all riled up on the subject of the sheer hypocrisy of evangelicals taunting that the LDS practice “institutionalized racism”; I feel like quoting the words of Jesus Christ in Luke 6:42 who decried:
“Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”
Crispin,
Of course, it must be remembered that the Roman Church also has declared Luther and Lutherans apostate and by extension every protestant. This has never been revoked. They have declared the very gospel of Jesus Christ apostasy. I do believe the Roman Church is wrong. I do not hate them, and believe there are many true believers within that Church. They have some bad theology that the great reformers, Calvin, Luther, etc. corrected. Is the position of Pope Anti-Christ? I do think that it usurps the position that only Christ should hold as our great high priest. Do I feel a kinship with Roman Catholics, one I do not share with LDS? – yes, for they have an understanding of the nature of God and the sacrificial death of Christ that is not shared with those outside of Christianity.
I cannot speak for Bob Jones, Mr Hagee, or the Klan – I have not and do not listen to them. Any Church that has not spurned racism and repented of any evil statements their leaders have made in the past I would not be associated with – including the LDS (for that and many other reasons).
The LDS never really repent, they just declare things unknowable and unsearchable, and let things quietly dissipate through time. The “prophet” will not come out and say – “we were wrong and deceived” because that undermines the entire notion of being led by a prophet. The official position is still that the banning of the priesthood for black folks was God’s will – enough said.
“Thus it is hypocrisy in the extreme for evangelicals to claim that the LDS Church practices “institutionalized racism” when their own sordid history of racial oppression is dripping with the blood of lynched negroes.”
St. Crispin your history is as sordid as your theology. Slavery is pre-Christian, let alone pre-American.
Where were the Mormons abolitionist that helped free blacks before the Civil War? Many, most, were white Protestants. And not just in this country either. Protestants in the 19th century did more to eradicate slavery then any other group. Do names like David Livingston and William Wilberforce ring a bell?
Here is the difference between you and me, between your camp and mine. I (we) own up to our mistakes. Yes, many a Protestant owned slaves and were somehow involved in the slave trade. Some even went so far as to twist the Bible in order to justify enslaving others. However, I will freely tell you that those who did so, and those who tried to justify the slave trade, made mistakes to the point of sin.
Are you willing to say that about Brigham Young and his comments? Keep in mind, BY was supposed to be a living prophet not just a mere pastor or bishop. Are you willing to go on record as to the reason why blacks were excluded from the priesthood? Was it the curse of Cain, some failing in the pre-existence, or good old fashioned racism? Where did the authority come from to exclude blacks from the priesthood? Why is it your church did not change its position regarding people of color until after it received enormous pressure from secular universities?
The guy who wrote Amazing Grace was a former slave trader. He “got it”; you don’t get it.
St Crispin,
I’m not offended by your suggestion to take the beam out of my eye before looking to the specks in the eyes of others. All I’ll say is that I do try to remove these planks, but I’ll let you judge whether I’ve succeeded.
I am offended, however, that you have done little to address what I see as the Biblical viewpoint. This stems from the idea that all men and women are made in the image of God and though we are diverse in our sex, culture, age, socio-economic demographic and whatever you’d like to name, the one thing that can reconcile us is the Cross of Christ and the Person of Christ for reasons that I posted earlier.
I am offended by the implication of LDS teaching, as it has been explained to me by my LDS colleagues, that being made in the image of God means that God has a physical, male body. Does that mean that women are made in the image of something else? I don’t think my colleagues have thought it through that far, but that’s where that kind of thinking will take them.
However, I am most offended by Joseph Smith’s demonstrated attitude, particularly through his introduction and practice of polygamy. Even if you don’t consider women to be chattels, he certainly did. He coveted after his neighbor’s wives and he took them as if they were mere objects. Your own church’s records tell of about 10 of his wives that were simultaneously married to other men. Look it up, if you dare.
This is even more evident in the theology of Brigham Young, who wrote “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy” (Journal of Discourses 11:269, 1866). Women have no part in this journey to exaltation; they merely form the steps upon which the men must tread in their “upward” career.
You, and your LDS colleagues may demonstrate a more Biblical view of women and blacks. However, you have signed yourselves up to follow the men who instituted these appalling attitudes into a religion. As you posted earlier; cast these beams out
I don’t have any real data on this, but growing up Catholic, I remember that there were black priests. They weren’t denied the priesthood in the Catholic Church. There was no institutional band on blacks holding the priesthood as there was in the Mormon church. In fact, current (black) supreme court justice Clarence Thomas grew up Catholic and was heading to the priesthood as a vocation before taking another professional route.
In Issue 47 of Christian History, on page 44 there’s a picture of two young men standing together. Those young men are Billy Graham and Martin Luther King. The caption reads (in part) “In 1957 Graham asked King to address his New York City crusade team on the topic of integration…..” In a 1950s article in Readers Digest Billy declared “Eleven o’clock Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America.” The article in Christian History goes on to say: “Last year black and white Pentecostals came together in a dramatic demonstration of repentance for the sins of racism during what is now called the “Memphis Miracle.” In that historic meeting, black and white leaders shed tears of confession, washed each other’s feet and most significantly, agreed to dissolve their separate organizations to form a new one, free of color barriers.”
While there certainly was a lot of work to be done institutionally to reconcile blacks and whites within the Christian body, that reconciliation didn’t have to include doctrinal matters.
Martin, David Whitsell, and Mobaby,
The whole evangelical charge that the LDS Church today practices “institutionalized racism” is:
1. A blatant lie;
2. Completely hypocritical given the fact that many U.S. evangelical churches to this very day a practice racial segregation in their congregations.
As stated earlier, white U.S. evangelical churches of the American South provided the theological, moral and intellectual underpinnings of institution of slavery. Furthermore, they provided the theological, moral and intellectual underpinnings and much of the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan. This vicious racism and vile religious bigotry is still to this very day prevalent in white U.S. evangelical churches of the American South.
Yes Brigham Young held some racist views but these odious views were the theological norm for his time in the 1850’s and BY’s views were far more liberal that those of most American protestants. The whole “Curse of Cain” doctrine had existed for centuries and was used by evangelicals to support the institution of slavery. It was the white protestants of the American south who actually practiced slavery. In contrast, many Mormons at that time were strong abolitionists. It was this abolitionist stance that sparked the conflict with the slave holding Missourians.
David, yes I know who Dr. David Livingston is – he is my great, great granduncle – and yes his LDS temple work has been done.
Martin,
Your remarks reveal a profound ignorance of even the basic tenets of LDS doctrine, history and culture.
You say that you are offended by the notion that God the Father has a body. Really, perhaps you should read
Genesis 1:26
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”
Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
What is so offensive about that?
I say it again, I always find it amazing as to how evangelicals love to tell blatant falsehoods about the LDS Church, its doctrine, people and history.
Martin from Brisbane writes:
“Women have no part in this journey to exaltation; they merely form the steps upon which the men must tread in their “upward” career.”
This is of course completely and utterly false.
Anyone who has even a basic understanding of LDS doctrine knows that eternal marriage is central to exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. The man and his wife enter the Celestial Kingdom together to abide with our Heavenly Father.
The very notion that:
“Women have no part in this journey to exaltation; they merely form the steps upon which the men must tread in their “upward” career.”
is a blatant lie and truly offensive.
We’re still waiting for the LDS Church to say it was wrong, that the DOCTRINE of excluding blacks from the priesthood and propagating the notion of their skin color being a curse was NOT GOD’S WILL. Christians worked to end slavery, Christian Churches have renounced evil in their past, we freely admit any and all racist activity was not of God. If any were excluded from membership or leadership it was the work of the devil. The world is still waiting for the LDS to declare the DOCTRINE of excluding blacks from the priesthood was evil. I praise God that they refuse and really cannot renounce this position without the entire theological structure of LDS tumbling down. This is my opinion, but I cannot help but believe that this long held theological DOCTRINE has made the LDS Church unattractive to those of African background. And the LDS inability or unwillingness to declare Brigham Young a false prophet keeps them locked into this theology (justifying, making excuses, side-stepping but never denying it’s essential authenticity). I am sure there are Mormons today that believe dark skin is a sign of a curse, and the the curse was lifted in 1976 but the sign remains. Perhaps someday the LDS will put aside all the false doctrines and repent and turn to Christ. Individual Mormons do everyday and I still pray for some Mormon friends from college that their eyes will be opened, I cannot help but believe that God put that friendship there for a reason. In reality the LDS theological structure has already tumbled down, for anything exalted against God cannot stand, and the LDS have essentially denied many of Brigham Young’s teachings revoking any claim of prophetic authority.
I pray that those reading this who realize the falseness of LDS theology will examine the truth of Christianity and begin to look at the evidence for the Bible. Read the Bible through, you will see God’s plan of salvation clearly laid out through the sacrificial system fulfilled in Christ.
Crispin,
Do women play a role beyond getting married? Before you dismiss this question as offensive and false, reread your last post.
Thanks.
St. Crispin,
Now you are just being dishonest. Much of the polarization that occurs across America is self imposed. Meaning, if modern Evangelical churches in the South are guilty of racism then so are Black churches in the South. How many Asians do you see in the Gospel tradition? Is that the fault of Asians or Blacks?
I did not make that quote so to attribute it to be me is a lie. Have the decency to take it back.
“As stated earlier, white U.S. evangelical churches of the American South provided the theological, moral and intellectual underpinnings of institution of slavery”
Seeing as how slavery existed long before the advent of the Messiah, this is quite the claim. Second, it ignores the fact (that I brought up) that (White) Protestants of that time, both here and abroad did a ton to eradicate slavery (BTW, many many people of color are Evangelical). You conveniently leave this out. Being an abolitionist in the 1850’s is great but if you are out West, which the overwhelming majority of Mormons were at that time, then it really doesn’t do a whole to help end slavery.
Third, not every white person in the South is or was a Christian or racist – facts you conveniently leave out.
You still have yet to condemn BY’s statements. Let’s be honest, given the grand claims Mormonism makes for itself, BY is held to a higher standard than some mere pastor of that time period. BY held (and still holds) more influence than any one person in Protestant Christianity (repsective to Mormonism) and as such he is/was in a position to do more damage . . . which has already been done. Yes, the curse of Cain doctrine idea existed long before Mormonism, but isn’t it telling that men who supposedly held the (restored) keys of the kingdom of God bought hook-line-and-sinker into that really bad idea. How can you state that BY’s views were more liberal than most Protestants of that time when many Protestants were abolitionists?
Michael P. writes: “Do women play a role beyond getting married?”
I presume that you are inquiring if in LDS doctrine women play a role in process of being exalted.
The simple answer is; YES.
Being married under the covenant of God (i.e. a temple marriage) is essential to being exalted and having eternal increase. Women are just as equally exalted as their husbands and enjoy the same potential of eternal progression.
Furthermore, BY was not more “liberal” in his racist views. He was much more racist than many of the non-Mormons of his day. BY quote –
“What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment I will will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. I shall not be while I am here.”
Also, consider that BY prescribed blood atonement for anyone who mixed his seed with that of the seed of Cain. That is way more racist than many Americans of the 19th century. BY even said that “the Northerners” worship negroes. So how is BY less racist than many/most 19th century Protestants? Many men of BY’s time were racist and many were not, so to defend BY solely on culture is worse than a cop out.
I will ask a again st. crispin, where did the authority come from to ban people of color from the priesthood?
Crispin,
Nope. Not the question. I kow they must, by definition, play a big role in exaltation if they are needed to be married to.
But beyond that, is there anything specific they must do besides being a bride?
David,
Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse or does that come naturally? When I refer to the institution of slavery as practiced in the United States (1700’s to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863) I am referring to the institution of slavery as practiced in the United States. I am not referring to slavery as practiced in Egypt or Mesopotamia or the Roman Empire. Is that not patently clear???
My statement is accurate and true that: “it was the American evangelical churches (Southern Baptists, Methodist Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church of the Confederate states) which openly advocated the defense of slavery and provided the theological, moral and intellectual underpinnings of slavery in the United States. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed over the issue of slavery in 1848 as were Methodist Episcopal Church in 1843 and the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States in 1861.”
Yes, of course there were American abolitionists fighting the curse of slavery in the United States. Indeed, many of the early Mormons from New England were staunch abolitionists which position of course sparked much of the persecution the Saints suffered in the slave state of Missouri.
Yes, of course Brigham Young held racist views. Brigham Young was very much a product of his times. However, there is a world of difference between holding racist views and actually owing slaves as did so many white evangelical clergymen in the southern United States. There is a world of difference between holding racist views and actually lynching and killing negroes as did so many white evangelical clergymen under the Ku Klux Klan in the southern United States.
Thus to restate my point: “it is hypocrisy in the extreme for evangelicals to claim that the LDS Church practices “institutionalized racism” when their own sordid history of racial oppression is dripping with the blood of lynched negroes.”
Crispin–
You say this: “Thus to restate my point: “it is hypocrisy in the extreme for evangelicals to claim that the LDS Church practices “institutionalized racism” when their own sordid history of racial oppression is dripping with the blood of lynched negroes.”
Actually, its not. Here’s why– modern Christians have distanced themselves from and have pretty universally apologized for those views of times gone past.
It is easy to look at the history and ignore the present, which is what you are doing by harping on this argument. Modern Christianity takes the opposite view from the views of many of our predessors, and would never go back to that view. Modern Christianity condemns slavery and the racist views of those times with no hesitation.
It is also important to note that Christians thought the souls of blacks worth saving and sent expeditions to Africa and other remote areas for that purpose.
Mormons cannot do this. They can only say that God told them that the time had come to reverse the racist policy of precluding blacks from becoming priests, only because they were black. If they were to say they got it wrong and apologize, the 130 years of the policy would be undermined, and more importantly, so would the trustworthiness of the living prophet. If he could be so wrong about that, what else is he/was he wrong about?
As to the missionaries not going to Africa, it really does raise questions about the commitment of the church to reach blacks given the combination of doctrine and absence of an effort to reach that continent.
So, really, the difference between your racist past and ours is two fold: first, we have reounced it completely, and despite the view of blacks as less than human, we still made an effort to save their “less than human” souls. Mormonism cannot take either position, and your present cannot allow you to because it would undermine everything you hold dear.
St. crispin you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself. The point I was making is that at the absolute most you could charge some Protestants for maintaining (key word there) the institution of slavery – they did not create it.
Also, many/most of the racist Protestants would say that (the highest level of) heaven was open to blacks. Meaning their lowly estate was just for this lifetime, or so some believed. But in LDS theology, no priesthood has eternal consequences in terms of one’s eternal progression.
Your statement is not accurate as it portrays Protestant America as a monolithic entity which it was not. It was deeply divided over slavery; heck the American Baptist church split over the issue giving rise to the Southern Baptist denomination. Many Protestants were abolitionists, far more than the LDS abolitionists you keep bringing up. Furthermore, those abolitionists were manning the underground railroad while your brothers were busy obeying the laws of the land. Does the name John Brown rind a bell? He was not a Mormon, nor could any such man ever be.
The Brighamite Mormons are and were most definitely a monolithic entity. Therefore it is not really possible to make an equal correlation. BY’s racist views were the law of the land in Utah as previously mentioned. In fact, your church did not change its mind until 1978. Even those denominations that were on the wrong side of the slavery issue saw the error of their ways long before that date.
There are a whole host of reasons why the citizens of Missouri had issues with Mormons, and polygamy (which was practiced at that time, but officially denied by your church) was one of if not the biggest issue.
You still don’t get it. BY was not just a product of his times. Many 19th century men were not racist. You make it sound like BY was born on a Southern plantation, the man was born in Vermont.
Also, BY did not just hold racist views. He advocated the murder of anyone who engaged in an interracial relationship. Again, worse than many of his contemporaries.
You still have not answered my question. Where did the authority come from, or what was the rationale as to why blacks were banned form the priesthood?
Lastly, I asked you to take back that quote you keep attributing to me. Are you going to be an honorable man or are you going to continue to do the Mormon shuffle?
O K everybody…let’s calm down here a little bit.
Don’t make me use my Rodney King quote…OK I will use it…”Can’t we all just get along?”
: )
The mormons feel vilified, and we Christians are frustrated because we think they just don’t get it. We’re all racing to our graves, so let’s at least follow the loving admonitions of our Beloved Savior and just “Love thy neighbor” and “Judge not”.
Everybody’s making great points, but the temperature is getting kind of hot.
David,
I think we have addressed the issue of your comment – “Also, BY did not just hold racist views. He advocated the murder of anyone who engaged in an interracial relationship. Again, worse than many of his contemporaries.” when we discussed the comments from Martin Luther on another blog topic. Martin Luther condoned (not condemned) polygamy and he also taught that one can murder and commit adultery hundreds of times a day but still be saved as long as that person believed in Jesus. But someone said – OK that’s what he taught but he did not do anything like that himself. Well, that may be what BY taught but he did not do it himself.
I really don’t get it.
I mean, its the LDS that go around knocking on peoples’ doors telling us that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are prophets sent to tell us the restored Gospel. But when I (and others) start discussing what these characters actually said and what they actually did, I get abused.
Maybe I missed something, but when a prophet of God turns up, I believe we should actually take notice of what they say and what they do. It becomes doubly important to do so when they claim to be restoring something that everybody else has lost. Its maybe triply important when you factor in the claim that these fellows are tasked with heading up the One and Only True Church of Christ.
I mean, what’s the point of restoring a Gospel if you’re only going to modify it later on? Isn’t that what the “apostate” orthodox church did, right up to the “restoration”? I know the Utah LDS feel comfortable about this because all of them do it together. But, on the other hand, what defence is there to the accusation that in doing so, they have all fallen into apostasy together.
I can only conclude that the versions of JS and BY that are promoted by the LDS movement bear little resemblance to the men that we see demonstrated in the records of their words and actions. Would the real JS and BY please step forward!
I much prefer the current LDS views to those of its founding prophets and I’d encourage current LDS to continue to move away from the legacy of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Here’s a suggestion. Let’s ignore the pontifications of JS and BY and look at what the Bible has to say without their “assistance”. At least nobody has objected to what I previously posted on that subject.
Ralph,
But BY carries/carried more weight for Mormons than Luther did for Protestants. And . . . I do not agree with that notion (if Martin Luther really said and believed that). If I remember the comment(s) you are referring to regarding Luther, the argument made was that Martin did act that way which is a type of proof that he did not actually believe that.
The whole point of that was to demonstrate that BY was more racist than many of his contemporaries – which he was. He was not just a product of his time and place. Many men from his age and locality were abolitionists.
I have yet to see an answer to my question of what was the rationale for banning blacks from the priesthood? Or, Sharon’s question of – 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?