NickN

Members
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NickN

  1. Growing up, I was taught that the former racial policy of the church was doctrine. After reading the church's essay (Race and the Priesthood), I started to wonder if that was ever the case. But I looked up the source of the teachings I had received, and it came straight from the former First Presidency! "The First Presidency Statement on the Negro Question August 17, 1949 The attitude of the Church with reference to 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 fathers 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 they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now 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 premortal 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 mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain 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. -The First Presidency: George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clarke David O. McKay" (Emphasis added) It strikes me that this official statement from the First Presidency seems to be in direct conflict with the recent official press release. So which do I believe? A past statement signed by a former First Presidency or an official press release, presumably approved by the current First Presidency? And how can current and past prophets be in conflict anyway, if both speak for God? Furthermore, according to the new press release, the things I had been taught in my youth were actually just the prophet's own worldly views, disguised as revelation! Isn't this exactly what we are warned about in the temple: "The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?" How could such a thing happen in a church led by God through living prophets?? I thought that God would never allow his prophets to lead us astray, but it appears that that is exactly what is happening here! Either we were lead astray in the past by prophets claiming the racial policy was doctrine, or we are being lead astray now by prophets claiming it wasn't! The whole issue has opened up some old wounds with me, and its really made me start re-investigating my testimony of the church as a whole. So I'd really appreciate any insight you folks might have! I'm going to talk to my bishop about it, he seems to know a lot about church history, so maybe that'll help too.
  2. I want to preface this by saying that I'm not trying to attack other religions or offend member of other religions who may be on this board, but I'm honestly trying to understand the mindset. We are so blessed to belong to a church with living prophets and apostles leading it through revelation straight from God! Having been born in the church, its difficult for me to imagine religion without that divine leadership. Having a man stand before the church and say "thus saith the Lord" is before laying out the doctrine is a comfort no other religion even pretends to have! Anyway, I guess my comment was really referring to what I heard recently about a large Presbyterian denomination, which apparently sent out a survey to determine its members opinions of core church doctrines. Then they changed their denomination's belief to better match up with what their members wanted to believe! I was shocked! Revelation by survey? Doctrine by democracy? How can they believe that their church is right, when their doctrines seem to originate from man, rather than God?