Vooduguru

One of my stances on the "racist" claims is that as early as 1957 (according to blacklds.org) the Melanesians which had really black skin were ordained priesthood holders, as they didn't share the same lineage as those that were denied. As I've pointed out to some friends, is the denial wasn't based on just skin color as is one of the tenets to racism. In a sense, a blind exclusion of anyone of a race different than another. My dad and I spoke on the matter when I was a teenager, and he pointed out that there were white skinned members that were denied the ordination of the priesthood for the same reasons. HD, what's your thought on that?

So are you saying that Smith made a mistake in giving Elijah Abel the priesthood? The common (outsider) reasoning for the lifting of the ban, was that the IRS was threatening to remove the church's status so they hastily made a decision. I think this is a flat out lie by those who make such accusations. So what are your comments on that? Honestly I am so tired of all the racist claims when the actions of the earliest leaders of the church were VERY far removed from the racial climate of the day. Ugh!

Well this will be my first post on this site. Here are some statements that I'd like to share: Given the flagrant throwing of the term "racist" around people of the LDS faith, and its history, I fail to see where the empirical evidence to such a claim rests. From my own study on the matter, beginning with Joseph Smith, he was an abolitionist, who's ideas (correct me if I'm wrong) were even more "extreme" than President Lincolns desires 20 + years later. For example, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but JS called for not only the abolition of slavery, but for blacks to OWN property AND vote. If this is true, then Joseph Smith does not fit the moniker of "racist" by his actions. From what I can gather, BY made some very questionable statements pertaining to having carnal relations with a black person, that a curse or instant death would follow. Personally from what I can gather, is that the "death" refers to spiritual death, and out of wedlock intercourse would also bring about a curse in the sense that all sin would bring with it some form of consequence (curse) and also, someone correct me, but wasn't it not even permitted for a white person to marry a slave or "negro"? *I'm using the term correctly for the period of history where the term "negro" was as "African-American" is used today. From what I've read the LDS faith never denied membership but restricted certain progression based on lineage, and not necessarily "skin color" because IF the accusation was true, that the ban was strictly based on skin color, then the Melanesians would have never received the priesthood in the 50's. Furthermore, from what I've gathered, the Hamites were not singly black skinned. They were both. Given the reference in Abraham 1:26, I see the blessing of wisdom to the black culture. But the denial of ALL priesthood benefits until was akin to God cursing the land for their sakes. Also, the reference to "black skin" from what I've read had more to do with geographic location as the descendants evolved a darker skin to protect themselves from the hotter, less dense foliage forest. Personally I believe in some aspects of evolution, as it pertains to the animal kingdom. I will never believe that it's possible that man evolved from some ape-like creature then we became human. I'd like some feedback on my comments, specifically from HemiDakota. I ain't talked with him in like forever!