In honor of the 35th anniversary of Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball’s announcement of the end of the priesthood ban against black Mormons (D&C Declaration 2), we are reposting Aaron Shafovaloff’s 30th anniversary article, “Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology.”
Still Repairing Brigham’s Mess
Mormon apologist Blake Ostler once said, “I personally believe that [Brigham Young’s] theology was a disaster for the most part” (>>). We have multiple reasons to concur with Blake (more than he would agree with), as Mormonism has spent much of its post-Brigham history picking up the pieces from the catastrophic mess of theology he left behind. The 1916 First Presidency statement on divine investiture and Elohim/Jehovah identities was largely driven by an effort to repair Brigham Young’s damaging Adam-God teaching. Contrary to the notion that it died with Brigham, it had carried well on into the 20th century. Some Mormons today are deeply embarrassed over Young’s teaching that Jesus was physically conceived by a natural union between Mary and the Father (who, for Brigham, of course, was Adam). Many Mormons have tragically settled for an “I don’t know” answer to the question of whether sexual intercourse was involved in the conception of Christ. Along with Adam-God, Brigham’s teaching that God still progresses in knowledge and power was condemned as a deadly, damning heresy by apostle Bruce McConkie. Then there’s individual blood atonement, men living on the Sun, participation in polygamy being absolutely necessary for Celestial exaltation, and on, and on. Many Mormons quietly write off Brigham Young as a crazy old uncle who has said very stupid, very irresponsible, very embarrassing, very damaging things. The problem is that he happened to say most of these things from the Tabernacle pulpit in a position of influential leadership and self-claimed prophetic authority. Mormons today try to laugh it off. Stephen Robinson even suggested that Adam-God might have been a joke. But at the end of the day Christians aren’t laughing. We have a higher standard for prophets than Mormonism allows. For us, becoming a Mormon would mean drastically lowering the bar for men who claim to be God’s living spokesmen on earth.
Reversing a “Direct Commandment of the Lord” Based Upon a “Doctrine of the Church”
On June 8, 1978, Mormonism attempted to reverse yet another one of Brigham’s embarrassing doctrines, the ban on blacks from holding the Mormon priesthood. The dominant historical explanation given for the ban was an appeal to pre-mortal decisions or indecisions. Negros were not as valiant in the pre-existence, and were cursed with the mark of Cain, black skin. This explanation was taught and expressed by LDS prophets and apostles, from Conference pulpits to a First Presidency statement:
“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.’ They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to.’ President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’ The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.” (Official First Presidency statement, August 17, 1951 [some sources date this to 1949], cf. John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89).
Mere Folklore or Institutionalized Racism?
In spite of this, Mormon leaders today continue to say things like,
“When you think about it, that’s just what it is — folklore. It’s never really been official doctrine… We have to keep in mind that it’s folklore and not doctrine… It’s never been recorded as such” (LDS General Authority Sheldon F. Child, quoted in “LDS marking 30-year milestone”, by Carrie A. Moore, Deseret News, June 7, 2008).
“This folklore is not part of and never was taught as doctrine by the church” (LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle, quoted in “Mormon and Black”, by Peggy Fletcher Stack, Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2008)
This gives the impression that the teaching and belief had a mere bottom-dwelling existence, only kept alive by the culture in a way not initiated by or acquiesced to by the overarching institution. In the dictionary, “folklore” is defined as unwritten lore that is passed down through tradition or anecdote. Calling the “curse of Cain” teaching mere folklore obscures the fact that it was institutionally promoted and institutionally perpetuated—publicly and explicitly and in writing. It was rooted in the teachings of men considered to be prophets and apostles, the conduits of prophetic counsel and the stream of continuing revelation.
No One Needs the Mormon Priesthood Anyway
As a Christian I find the reversal on one level insignificant. The Aaronic priesthood is, according to Hebrews, “useless”, “weak”, and “obsolete”, a shadow of the Messiah to come who would serve as our sufficient sacrifice and priest. The “Aaronic priesthood” of Mormonism today doesn’t remotely follow the functions of the priesthood as described by the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Melchizedek is held up as an analogy for Christ’s unique priestly role and identity, but there is never described an ordained Melchizedek priesthood that flows from Christ to male followers. Mormonism simply reads Joseph Smith’s imaginary priesthood structure into the Bible. And I am not at all interested in obeying Satan when he tells people, “See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness.” Christians don’t feel like any non-Mormon Christian is missing out from Mormon temples. In Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Our intensified experiences with God and his people come through, among other things, reading his word, serving, singing, loving,suffering, praying, communing with our brotherhood in Christ, being swallowed up in the bigness of God’s creation. We don’t have to step inside a building to experience the Holy Spirit in a deeper way. Christians have the permanently indwelling Holy Spirit, immediately accessible, received at conversion in the same way we received justification and the forgiveness of sins: by grace through faith apart from personal works or merit or earning or worthiness. It is Mormons, white and black, who are missing out by being led astray from having a two-way personal relationship with Jesus Christ, based on the foundation of freely received eternal life.
Prevented From Being Complete Followers and Servants of Jesus?
In his book In the Lord’s Due Time, the first black to receive the Mormon priesthood after the 1978 reversal, Joseph Freeman, tells of hearing about the priesthood announcement. He writes,
“As I hung up the phone, little beads of perspiration broke out on my forehead, and my knees began to shake uncontrollably. It was true! It was really true! I could hold the priesthood! My lifetime dream of becoming a complete follower and servant of Jesus had come true.”
Did you catch that? Mormonism had deceived Freeman into thinking that, because he was black and because he couldn’t enter into a man-made temple, he could not yet be a complete follower and servant of Christ. Let that sink in.
Withholding blessings of the New Testament church (whatever one deems those blessings to be) from people based on skin-color or ethnicity reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel. The promise and assurance of the fullness of eternal life is not for the religious elite, but for the brokenhearted, coffee-drinking, cigarette-smoking, nose-pierced, foul-mouthed, rough-edged, self-despairing, barely spiritual, unworthy moral failures who come to Christ with the empty hand of faith, trusting him for the free promise of eternal life and the heart-changing indwelling of the Spirit. Scripture doesn’t take this lightly. Come to Christ with empty hands and you will have eternal joy. Put up the divisive, unscriptural barriers of moralism or ethnicity or skin-color or quasi-masonic or distinctively Jewish ordinances, and you incite what John Piper calls the “compassionate rage” of true apostles like Paul, who start calling down anathema (Galatians 1:6-9).
Institutional Integrity Demands an Apology and a Repudiation
Mormon apostle Jeffrey Holland seems to have at least a partial understanding of the institutional responsibility Mormonism has to make right the wrongs. In an interview associated with the PBS special, “The Mormons”, he said the following regarding actions the Mormon Church could take to make sure that the curse of Cain teaching isn’t perpetuated:
“I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.” (>>)
The problem for Holland is that he has bought into a shallow, inadequate, and irresponsible way of dealing with false teachings and false beliefs once promoted by Mormon prophets and apostles. In a noteworthy Mormon blog post called, “How does Mormon doctrine die?“, Margaret Young is quoted as saying,
“Card-carrying Mormons do often believe that Blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence and that polygamy is essential to eternal progression. Neither position has been formally repudiated by the powers that be. We have merely distanced ourselves from them.”
Kaimi Wenger, the author of the post, goes on to write:
“To the extent that they are not repeated and reinforced, unrepudiated ideas slowly fade from the community’s consciousness. This is in large degree because of the structure of Mormon belief. Mormon theology is unusually informal, vague and undefined. Because the church does not issue encyclicals or Summa Theologica, our theology is largely of the what-the-prophets-say-today variety… Our belief structure being what it is, [old ideas] cannot truly be killed — but neither are they really alive. “
Mormon leaders depend on this. Formal repudiation is avoided by Mormon leaders, as it would highlight the fallibility of church leaders (particularly prophets and apostles) and potentially bring a sensitive, embarrassing issue to light, prompting many to investigate material from earlier Church leaders which isn’t faith-promoting. Explicit, formal repudiation of past teaching that names names and quotes quotes would set a dangerous precedent in a religion which fosters so much dependency on the reliability of the institution’s succession of leaders. To save face, Mormon leaders opt for a quiet way of distancing old ideas, allowing them to continue amongst the culture in part, but betting on the forgetfulness and historical ignorance of future generations.
Authentic repentance, integrity, and love for people would demand not only a distancing by a lack of repetition, but also a formal, official, explicit apology for and repudiation of the priesthood ban and the teachings historically used to theologically justify it. Mormonism’s institution arrogantly sees itself as above having to give an apology for things like this. In fact, Mormonism has fallen short of even admitting the priesthood ban was wrong or racist. Gordon B. Hinckley had the audacity to say of the ban, “I don’t think it was wrong.” Marcus Martins, a black Mormon and the chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii, has been warped into thinking “The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist“.
Aspects and echos of the principles behind the curse of Cain teaching continue still today. At a recent BYU devotional the dean of Religious Education, Terry Ball, said,
“Have you ever wondered why you were born where and when you were born? Why were you not born 500 years ago in some primitive aboriginal culture in some isolated corner of the world? Is the timing and placing of our birth capricious? For Latter-day Saints, the answer is no. Fundamental to our faith is the understanding that before we came to this earth we lived in a premortal existence with a loving Heavenly Father. We further understand that in that premortal state we had agency and that we grew and developed as we used that agency. Some, as Abraham learned, became noble and great ones. We believe that when it came time for us to experience mortality, a loving Heavenly Father, who knows each of us well, sent us to earth at the time and in the place and in circumstances that would best help us reach our divine potential and help Him maximize His harvest of redeemed souls” (“To Confirm and Inform: A Blessing of Higher Education,” March 11, 2008, BYU Devotional).
Settling for Less than Full Dignity
In the DVD set, “Blacks in the Scriptures“, Marvin Perkins was asked if the Church should make a kind of “mea culpa”, an admission of guilt and an apology for past wrongdoings. He responded by saying that his mother has always taught him to eat his dinner before he could have his dessert, that he should be content with what is already available. With all due respect to my black brother in humanity who is equally created (not begotten) in the image of God, it seems Mr. Perkins is still saying, “Yes, master”, to the human institutional powers above him. Instead of appropriately demanding the full dignity that is due, and publicly heralding a call for an explicit repentance and apology and confession from Mormonism’s top leadership for the Mormon institution’s past wrongdoings, he has settled in some significant ways for a continued second-class treatment. That simply bewilders me. I write this to let people like him know that we haven’t forgotten the apology that is due to him. We take note that the Mormon Church decided to publicly schedule a general authority, not an apostle or prophet, to speak at the Sunday, June 8th commemorative event held at the Tabernacle. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon institution has no black general authorities. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon Church largely (but not absolutely) squelches what could be entirely appropriate black cultural expressions of spirituality in aspects of the Sunday-morning church experience, choosing instead to significantly force culturally homogenous liturgy and hymnody and homiletics.
June 8 is a Day of Shame
As an evangelical, I cannot celebrate the half-baked, unfinished reversal of policy and doctrine that happened in 1978. It serves as a reminder of institutional arrogance, of unrepentance, and of a false gospel that puts undue power in man-controlled ordinances. Saving faith instead looks alone to the person of Jesus Christ, who offers the assurance of the full and complete benefits of the gospel to anyone who would receive them by faith as a gift.
As long as you arrogantly refuse to issue an apology and an explicit renunciation, shame, shame, shame on you, Mormon leaders. Let June 8th be a day of shame.
- Black Skin and the Seed of Cain, by Bill McKeever
- Thirty Years After the Priesthood Ban was Lifted (PDF tract—now is a great time to distribute this!)
- Black Skin and the Seed of Cain
- “Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks,” by Larry B. Stammer, Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1998 – the disavowing in question never came to fruition
- “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” by Lester E. Bush, Jr., Dialogue, vol. 8, no. 1
- Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issuein a Universal Church, edited by Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss
- Residual Racism in Modern Mormonism, by Timothy Oliver
- Latter-day Saints—Where Did You Get Your Authority?
- Priesthood Restoration – Chapter 7 of An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, by Grant Palmer
- Where Do You Get Your Priesthood Authority – Part 1, Part 2 (YouTube video), by Witnesses for Jesus
- Priesthood Restored or Retrofit?
- Jesus’ Unique Priesthood
- SBC renounces racist past – Southern Baptist Convention
- Thinking Strategically about a Ban Disavowal, by Kevin Barney – ““We don’t know” was an interim strategy that worked well enough for its time. But the problem is, that mantra was meant to preserve the possibility that God ordered the ban from on high, and a lot of older Saints understand it in exactly that way. And as long as we try to leave that option on the menu, people are going to continue to fill in the doctrinal vacuum with the old, offensive ideas. Those ideas will not die under a “we don’t know” rubric; they will only die under a firm disavowal.”
- Racist principles were taught to older Mormons such as Professor Randy Bott, by Doug Gibson
- “The Church has yet to issue a formal apology for its part in the formation and maintenance of racist discourse…. Church authorities merely ended the priesthood ban leaving, in its wake, the membership with the burden of examining their own internal biases. As it has always been in Mormonism, the head speaks and the body follows. The tokens offered yesterday are not enough to silence the demand for human decency, and certainly not enough to end the deep, internalized white racial frames adopted by much of the rank-and-file. Until the LDS Church apologizes, black folk might want to pause when seeing two out-of-place, ‘clean cut’ looking, white boys on bicycles in their neighborhood.” – Darron T. Smith, “Mormon Church Finally Notes Black Elders, Still Offers No Apology”
You said “Except that the WHEN it is to be lifted does not coincide with the WHEN the LDS Church actually lifted it.”
You have proved nothing. What time table is given in these quotes. Only that the other descendents of Adam must receive the blessings first. None of the quotes speak of individuals, but of people. Thus, those of the black race were to be after the Orientals, the American Indian, the Norse peoples, and all the other peoples of the earth. I would also say that this includes any race or civilization that lived and died without the chance of these blessings, and thus had to wait until their work could be done for them.
In all this how have you proven that all the various peoples of the world have not been brought the gospel? You can’t, and you know it. You have failed to prove anything except what I have already said.
Jaxi already gave that quote, and I have explained it. In 1966 this was very true. However, that has been changed. He never once says that it will always be true, only that it was at that time.
This book has been updated since then, as all good encyclopedic books are, and now reads “In all past ages and until recent times in this dispensation, the Lord did not offer the priesthood to the Negroes. However, on June 1, 1978, in the Salt Lake Temple, in the presence of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation from the Lord directing that the gospel and the priesthood should now go to all men without reference to race or color.”
You have no understanding, which does not mean that the quotes you give are not true. It simply means that you do not understand their full meaning, context and implications. You do not understand, and though you try to claim otherwise, you constantly show that you do not understand to anyone who actually knows the doctrine. Of course, you claim the same of me because you have deluded yourself into thinking that you know the doctrine, and so when I correct you it must logically follow that I am wrong, as I do not agree with your delusions.
You said “And you COULD read about what YOU quoted in Woodruff’s Journals”
Maybe. But I never said you could, and thus when you claimed that I did you misquoted me and lied about what I said, which is what I pointed out.
Oh, and while the hint of a distinction is seen, a discussion of the distinction is not, nor is it explicitly stated. Thus, again, you misrepresent the quote that give, as usual.
You said “I said nothing inaccurate.”
Actually, you said plenty that was inaccurate, I just didn’t care to go through all of it.
Here is a partial list
7. If you “mingle” with the “seed of Cain” you must have your head cut off to atone for it
8. It will “take the life” of any children. (they also must die by “blood atonement”)
9. Shedding of blood is no big deal many men “sacrificed” because of their “sins”
14. The Negros are the Devil and they will not rule
You said “Young taught that the seed of Cain would NEVER hold the Priesthood until ALL of the seed of Able received their blessings AND the priesthood. Has that happened yet? NOPE.”
I think, for at least this thread, I am going to ignore you. I realize now why I have not spoken to you very often. You are the one who can’t seem to open his mouth, so to speak, without some kind of mockery and twisting of truth spewing from it. I am not in the mood right now.
<"You have proved nothing."
I don't care to prove anything to you. I think the conclusions that you draw from these quotes are unique. So I post them again with some more highlighted points for those with thick skulls.
“How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will REMAIN UPON THEM, and THEY NEVER CAN HOLD THE PRIESTHOOD or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, THE CHILDREN OF CAIN CANNOT RECEIVE THE FIRST ORDINANCES OF THE PRIESTHOOD. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pp. 290-291, 1859, emphasis added.
“When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and HAVE RECEIVED THEIR RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 143, 1854, emphasis added. Note: Young taught that blacks would not receive the Mormon priesthood until AFTER the resurrection.
“They [blacks] will GO DOWN TO DEATH. And when ALL the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which WE now are entitled to.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p.272, 1866, emphasis added.
Now you seem to interpret descendants as a group of people and not as the individuals. So according to you, as long as one person from a race receives the “priesthood” that counts. You really seem to have thrown out the word ALL that is in each of those quotes. “All the rest of the children” “ALL the other children.” “ALL the other descendants of Adam.” You can interpret it any way you want. But if anyone reads it for what it says, it is rather clear, ALL the whites were to receive the priesthood before any black person. You also seem to forget that it says “and HAVE RECEIVED THEIR RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.” Have the Mormons already been resurrected from the dead? Remember it says ALL.
There was a time when those who had chose to follow Joesph Smith and be a missionary tool
for his new church reflected the message of those men who Jesus long ago had sent out to preach
important spiritual truths —Gal 3:28; Acts 11:34-35, 43 , etc. Unfortunately , this modern day
message soon suffered alteration . Apostasy from this message began to happen . Now Black
people were banned from receiving the full blessings and privileges of the gospel because the
message that men like Paul had taught was augmented with the teachings from his ” modern
day ” counterparts. Officers in this new church also began to introduce other so called ” long lost
or unavailable ” truths about man and even God . Doctrine about God went from from One God
to multiple Gods and Goddesses , church doctrine went from a wife deserving exclusive
affection of her husband , to wives . A message of the full privileges and blessings of the gospel
of Jesus available to all peoples , became a message that people with black skin were now
banned from receiving such . Apostasy had set in on many important issues . Despite the
assurance from Mormon leaders that they had restored the same gospel as Paul preached , the
evidence says otherwise . Their spiritual witness to the new doctrines they introduced to their
flock caused many sincere followers to be short changed —they were misled into embracing
false doctrine . This whole issue with Mormonism and their teachings about Black people can
serve as a example of why it is important to follow the counsel to test the prophets —1Jn 4:1 ,
this was crucial in the apostles days , and even more so today .
The Mormon people should exchange their apostles with those in the New Testament .
By anchoring their doctrine with those apostles they will be much safer from men who
teach for doctrine the commandments of men in these latter days .
I have. And I shall again. Not that it would do any good, you are pretty imbecilic when it comes to comprehension. I think your bubble gets thicker everyday.
You can READ, can’t you Shem? I know that you are dense, nescient and shallow, but try to keep up. “The consequence was that Cain was cursed & HIS SEED & THIS CURSE WILL REMAIN UNTIL ABEL’S POSTERITY WILL GET ALL THE BLESSINGS THEIR IS FOR HIM.
Have all of Abel’s “posterity” been born yet? Nope. And here is what the posterity of Abel is:
Latter-day scripture also states that the priesthood among the ancients had been passed down through Abel, who was ordained by Adam (D&C 84:6-17). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism) Brigham Young said,
Redeemed means their temple ordinances done. Have the temple ordinances been done for ALL the seed of Abel? I don’t think so. But here is the kicker. I saved this for last. Not only must it be done for all the seed of Abel, but all the seed of ADAM:
Residue is something that remains, or Until the last ones of those that remain of Adam’s children. He is NOT speaking of groups of people going in certain order. Only someone with no comprehension skills would read that into it. Or someone totally desperate. And,
Go on Shem. Tell me that ALL the seed of Adam has received the “blessings of the Priesthood and the RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.” Squirm out of that one. As I’ve told you time and again. You don’t know what you are talking about, and are not very well read in Mormon History, Doctrine or anything else for that matter. As for the others, they are right in my original quotes. Learn how to read. But here are some more: George Q Cannon said,
And yes, the Devil. Can’t forget about the Devil. Those evil negroes. Here is Jo Smith & Oliver Cowdery in 1836:
This appeared in the Times and Seasons in 1845:
Wow, the descendants of Ham followed an apostate of the holy priesthood? Black hearts? Really? You Lurkers reading this? But I thought in Mormonism man would be judged for his own sins? Only if you were WHITE, I guess. But they were just warming up. It gets much clearer what those racist “prophets” were really getting at:
Satan needed representation on earth. So God did so by way of the lineage of Cain. Pretty horrible stuff huh? Here is Taylor again,
The Devil had to be represented by the black folks? Really? It was NECESSARY for the blacks to be cursed? NECESSARY? Satan could not find any white people to do his bidding? How ugly is that? This was the PROPHET at the time???? Are you kidding me? So, The blacks are the little devils on earth. Told you so, Shem.
The only way to get rid of the curse per Brigham Young:
I can go on and on. It’s obvious you don’t know how to comprehend anything outside of your Bubble of Denial.
Thanks, Jaxi. You posted while I was compiling. 🙂
I advise you to read this Shem. It might help you understand the depths of the racism that inspires your own:
What’s going on here ?
We observe the spiritual witness of Mormon officials in ordaining a Black man ( Elijah Abel ) to
the priesthood soon after the Mormon church was established , and later he was sent on
missions . Did he baptize and ordain converts while on his mission ? Black converts ?
Oddly, years later it appears that Elder Abel’s use of his priesthood was suspended by
Mormon authorities ( according to Mormon scholar John L. Lund ) because they found out
about his Negro ancestry .
Another interesting thing happened with the testimony from Joseph Fielding Smith . In 1931
he referred to the black sinned descendants of Cain as a ” inferior race ” . Yet in 1962 he
testified that the Latter Day Saints have not described the Negro as belonging to an ” inferior
race ” . Are both of these statements the result of a spiritual witness ?
Then there’s the teaching by Brigham Young where he said that apostates will become , among
other things, wrinkled and black . ( Jof D v 5 p.332 ) .
I guess Grindeal, Kate , Jaxi, and you other apostates here should think about that !
I just can’t help but thinking that when we take into consideration all of what Mormon authorities
have taught about Negroes /Black skin etc , that common sense would dictate that we should
dismiss these alleged latter day counterparts of Paul and the other men whom preached in
the New Testament .
The Mormon people need to know that complete forgiveness together with a saving relationship
with God and eternal life with Him in heaven with all the fullness of the blessings there , is
available outside of the Mormon church and allegiance to it’s apostles .
“Then there’s the teaching by Brigham Young where he said that apostates will become , among
other things, wrinkled and black . ( Jof D v 5 p.332 ) .”
I am laughing at this. I have technically been a Mormon apostate for 6 years and I still have my light skin, blonde hair ( that doesn’t come from a bottle) and blue eyes. However, I have noticed a few crows feet forming, I’m not laughing about that 🙂
How Mormons just dismiss this racism is appalling to me. Is there nothing they won’t try to defend? My Mother in law wouldn’t even let her kids watch Black people on T.V. because of LDS teachings about Blacks. My own Mother said not long ago that the reason they have Black skin is because Satan needed a representative on earth. Where did she learn this I wonder. The thing is, she is not a racist person, yet she doesn’t give one thought to that belief as being racist because it was taught by a prophet, so therefore it came from God himself. I grew up thinking that same thing and was also taught Blacks weren’t valiant like myself in the pre existence. What a load of garbage! This issue and these disgusting teachings are one of the reasons I left Mormonism.
I quoted this blogger on the first thread dealing with Bruce McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine”. I didn’t include this final paragraph so I’ll do so here:
“McConkie is long dead now – and, to be fair to him, he did issue the equivalent of an “I’m full of crap” statement after Spencer W. Kimball’s 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood. At that time, McConkie encouraged Latter-day Saints to forget everything he’d ever said about race and people of African descent, since the Church now had further light and knowledge on the subject.
The trouble is, some didn’t forget. Now, with his book finally off the shelves and lacking the Church’s seeming imprimatur, perhaps they will.”
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/05/one-year-later-bruce-r-mcconkie%e2%80%99s-mormon-doctrine-buh-bye.html#ixzz2W1J4dCVV
Andy Watson spent a lot of time in a deep apologetic encounter (several months) with some Jehovah Witnesses. Andy came to the conclusion, given to him by a former JW, that it’s almost useless to spend time trying to convince these folks based on the Scriptures. The reason is that they have such a twisted view of the Word of God that you do little but play a form of apologetic ping pong with them.
What Andy learned is that what has to happen is that these folks need to lose confidence in the Watch Tower organization, who they believe is prophetic, before they can “hear”.
It’s much the same with Mormons I believe. Look for example at our Mormon poster Shem. He swears up and down that he’s using the solid Bible interpretation principles that I listed and yet he’s off in lala land. It’s because he’s depending on the LDS cult to provide him with his actual interpretation of the Scriptures. It’s the lens of Mormonism that distorts the Word of God and yet they think they are seeing clearly.
It’s the Spirit of God that brings light to the Scriptures. If someone has a different god, Jesus, Holy Ghost and an added Holy Spirit, how can they see plainly?
I thank God in Our Lord Jesus Christ that those like yourself responded to the promptings of the Holy Spirit that something wasn’t quite right in the LDS church.
I think, for at least this thread, I am going to ignore you. I realize now why I have not spoken to you very often. You are the one who can’t seem to open his mouth, so to speak, without some kind of mockery and twisting of truth spewing from it. I am not in the mood right now.”
The problem for you is that you are getting your head handed to you here and you can’t deal with it. Your tactic in what you stated in your remarks to me is indicative that you have neither the spiritual power, intellectual gravitas or emotional maturity to be on a site such as Mormon Coffee.
You’re eating all the manure the LDS church feeds you and you think it’s a feast. That’s what happens when someone has a spiritually seared mind and conscience and have given themselves over to a spirit of deception.
Your emotional response indicates to all of the readers that you’ve lost the battle and that Mormonism cannot be defended.
It’s apparent. You’re not fooling anyone.
Falcon, some quick comments on some of the things you said above :
religious organizations like the Mormon church and Watchtower Society ( Jw’s) which have
the arrangement on a prophet at the top who is viewed by rank and file members as the sole
“mouthpiece of God ” on earth today , God’s “channel” of communication He reveals His
spiritual truths through to mankind , this type of authoritive arrangement thus is the decider
in what is considered correct doctrine and as such members are therefore told to submit to
such . To allow yourself to entertain the thought that the prophet is dispensing doctrinal error
and /or to criticize ” God’s channel ” , is to invite God’s judgement towards you etc . Therefore
even though a members in organizations such as these carry a Bible with them and engage in
Bible study , if they happen come to a different interpret of the scriptures then it’s the prophet
teaching that takes priority . All the principles of scriptural interpretation ( which you listed )
are mute points because as a Mormon apostle once reminded members, “when the prophet
speaks the debate is over ” . In the case of Jw’s it’s even worse , their prophet actually stated
that to come to a right understanding of Jehovah’s will and a correct understanding of the
Bible that members should ” avoid independent thinking ” . Independent thinking ” for a Jw
has been described as questioning that ” God’s channel ” might not be revealing true doctrine .
So again , for people in organizations like these interpretation principles take a back seat .
As Christians we are not caught in this type of arrangement , in these latter days it’s important
to remember this . We have the Holy Ghost and good interpretive principles as we study, period.
As far as McConkie’s book , ” Mormon doctrine” goes , the way many apologists like Shem
argue is pretty much a red herring in my view .
This issue ( Mormonism and Black people / curses etc ) is a classic example of why the Mormon
people should dismiss their leadership and exchange them with the apostles that preached in
the New Testament . The precious Mormon people deserve more trustworthy spiritual guides .
You don’t understand at all.
You said “So according to you, as long as one person from a race receives the “priesthood” that counts.”
No. It counts when the missionary effort has been performed among them, allowing them the opportunity to accept the gospel. It doesn’t matter if any of them actually do or not, as long as they are given the chance.
Oh, and read the context and syntax of the quote that speaks of resurrection. He is not saying this is the actual time frame. He is saying that even if it does take that long there will still be time to give the black race the blessings, and so it doesn’t matter all that much. He said this to reassure those black members in the audience that while it may take some time, the blessings would come.
Again, you prove nothing, just as Jaxi has proven nothing. Show me all those that would have been of the line of Abel, and then point to the ones that have not been given the chance to receive the gospel.
Residue does mean what is left, but what is left would be determined by what you started with. If I am counting apple trees and speak of the residue than it is out of context to claim that I meant every single apple. If I am talking about peoples, then it is out of context to claim that I am talking about individuals. Brigham Young never meant individuals, but groups, or races, or nations, or however you want to say it.
It makes no sense in any other way. If he was talking about individuals than you must also conclude that he meant that every single descendent of Adam would receive the blessings of the priesthood, which is completely contrary to all the doctrine. You would also have to conclude that none of the black race would be resurrected until the last resurrection with all the wicked, which is also against the rest of the doctrine.
What we really have here, and what is usually the case with you, is an attempt to isolate a few quotes and interpret them while ignoring everything else said and taught. It doesn’t work, and it never will. In light of everything else taught by these men and in the church the only way these quotes make sense is if they are speaking to peoples or races. You can offer nothing except your opinion to the contrary, and that is simply illogical.
As to the rest of it, it all falls into your own twisted and sordid mind, filled with your delusions, misunderstandings and out right lies.
Just to clarify, Satan had a representation on Earth, not because the wife of Ham or any of the black race are devils, but because the mark of the curse was preserved, and that mark was a reminder of the power and influence of Satan. To look at this any other way is again to contradict the doctrine of the church and the scriptures, for we read in Abraham “Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
Pharaoh, BEING A RIGHTEOUS MAN, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days”
Again, you are inaccurate in your delusions.
You said “I can go on and on. It’s obvious you don’t know how to comprehend anything outside of your Bubble of Denial.”
I have no doubt you could, but I doubt that anything else would be any more accurate.
You gave these two points
7. If you “mingle” with the “seed of Cain” you must have your head cut off to atone for it
8. It will “take the life” of any children. (they also must die by “blood atonement”)
And then you give this quote to prove them
“Let me consent to day to mingle my seed with the seed of Cane. It would Bring the same curse upon me And it would upon any man. And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children.”
The problem is that this does not prove either one. This quote gives a choice as to having the curse remain in your family or be removed from it. Your point 7 does not, but states it as a requirement. Thus you are inaccurate in your statement.
As to point 8, this statement makes no reference to blood atonement in regards to the children. It will take their life simply by reason that if you are dead you cannot give them life. Thus their chance at life, or at least at the life you would have given them is taken. If you did not consent to such action but chose to have the curse in your family than it would also take the life of your children, in that they would also be denied the Priesthood.
(I’ll post again later)
The comments to me by Shem are hilarious. I am not going to bother to address but one to show how FOOLISH he is. He said,
My statement was,
It does PROVE BOTH. Yes, if you DON’T have your head cut off, you are damned. Duh. You MUST have your head cut off IN THIS LIFE TO ATONE FOR IT. Look up the word ATONE, genius. It would be voluntary. This is just ignorance at the highest level. I’m just fascinated at how your mind works Shem. It’s not normal. You do not comprehend anything with common sense. You just make things up as you go. Everyone here, (including the lurkers) knows this. And you can’t keep your word. You are a LIAR. You said you would never address me again. You can’t even keep your own word. How can anyone take it for anything of worth?
“I’m just fascinated at how your mind works Shem. It’s not normal. You do not comprehend anything with common sense. You just make things up as you go. Everyone here, (including the lurkers) knows this. And you can’t keep your word. You are a LIAR.”
Don’t you hate it when this stops becoming about the topic and starts becoming about the Poster? But that’s how this business works. The reason for that is that cultists have, as you point out, a brain-lock that becomes part of the discussion.
Cultist like Shem, entangled in a false religious system, are trained by the cult to think in certain ways. The number one premise that they operate under is that “the cult is true”. So from that point on, clear evidence that demonstrates that the cult isn’t true, can’t be absorbed. The information passes through the cult belief system filter and into the cult bubble where life is not normal and where thinking is bubble wrapped.
So then these guys like Shem, with their distorted bubble wrapped thinking show up here and they are exposed to information and “out of the bubble” thinking, and they can’t relate to it. They can’t even answer questions in an honest and straight forward manner.
I’m discussing this because being involved here with this particular Mormon mindset gives me practice as I enter the Mormon bubble in Nauvoo in a couple of days.
What’s funny is that I usually encounter the “Naive True Believers” rather than the “Arrogant True Believers” in my travels into “the Bubble”.
One final quote from Dr. Walter Martin:
“Talking about spiritual things to Mormons,” he said, “is like trying to describe a rainbow to a blind man. You are talking about a rainbow to a guy who doesn’t know what color is.”
I think this is very descriptive of our Mormon poster Shem who lives in the Mormon bubble, has had his brain bubble wrappedand isn’t emotionally equipt to deal with life outside of it.
Shem, we’ve had an important conversation in more recent threads. I see you posting here today. Why haven’t you responded to the comments in the more recent threads?
As falcon has pointed out, this thread has become more about Mormon Coffee participants than about the topic. Comments here are now closed.
Pingback: Mormonism hurts. | Mormon Coffee