Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

Black LDS?

Aesa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Apostate

Guest Apostate

Posted
Posted

What's the point of the original post?

This comes from a non-member, who routinely engages in contention in the chat room, who hails from a country where...well, their record on Civil Rights is less than laudable???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aesa

Aesa

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Haha, I agree with you on our failed civil rights (as much as just about every other countries' failing in that area in the modern era) the point of this post was to see if the timeline was accurate or not, via the comments of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the Ogre

the Ogre

Posted
Posted

The practice was discontinued after the Pearl of Great Price, but does it matter? I don't think so and nor does anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind.

All I know right now is that I'm listening to "Rockin' Daddy" by Howlin' Wolf. Maybe I'll go to the Provo Temple and get his temple work done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spiritseeker

spiritseeker

Posted
Posted

I think the main point is it is in the past. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we accept the authority of our Prophets and the revelations they receive. Perhaps we don't understand or always like what is revealed. But, ours is not always to understand but to follow in obedience. The point is Heavenly Father revealed to our Prophet that the time was over for the ban. And, I am thankful to God for His revelations. So , please stop :deadhorse:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

Posted
Posted

Tenderizing meat?

Worried, Beefche? :satan:

Joseph Smith was giving the priesthood to the linage of Cain but after further revelation put a stop to it [book of Moses].

I'm not sure we can make that claim. The Book of Moses was translated in 1831. Abraham was published for the first time in 1842, but Smith had been working on it since about 1836. Abel was ordained in 1836 and re-ordained in 1841.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hemidakota

Hemidakota

Posted
Posted

Worried, Beefche? :satan:

I'm not sure we can make that claim. The Book of Moses was translated in 1831. Abraham was published for the first time in 1842, but Smith had been working on it since about 1836. Abel was ordained in 1836 and re-ordained in 1841.

Portions of the JST were published before the martyrdom of the Prophet, 12 although the entire translation was not made available until 1867, when the RLDS Church printed the first edition of the JST. Some of the New Translation was available through the Evening and Morning Star in Independence, Missouri (1832-33). In the Lectures on Faith, a collection of seven theological lectures delivered by the Prophet to the School of the Prophets in Kirtland (1834-35), Joseph quoted a number of scriptural passages according to the New Translation. The Lectures on Faith was contained in the first edition (1835) of the Doctrine and Covenants. In addition, what is now known as Joseph Smith-Matthew (the JST of Matthew 24) was published sometime between 1832 and 1837, while the visions of Moses (Moses 1) was published in the Times and Seasons in 1843. Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, by Monte S. Nyman, Robert L. Millet

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

Posted
Posted

Portions of the JST were published before the martyrdom of the Prophet, 12 although the entire translation was not made available until 1867, when the RLDS Church printed the first edition of the JST. Some of the New Translation was available through the Evening and Morning Star in Independence, Missouri (1832-33). In the Lectures on Faith, a collection of seven theological lectures delivered by the Prophet to the School of the Prophets in Kirtland (1834-35), Joseph quoted a number of scriptural passages according to the New Translation. The Lectures on Faith was contained in the first edition (1835) of the Doctrine and Covenants. In addition, what is now known as Joseph Smith-Matthew (the JST of Matthew 24) was published sometime between 1832 and 1837, while the visions of Moses (Moses 1) was published in the Times and Seasons in 1843. Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, by Monte S. Nyman, Robert L. Millet

Does a revelation become binding on the recipient as of the date it is received? Or only on the date that the recipient gets around to publishing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the Ogre

the Ogre

Posted
Posted

Well, I hope you're not saying I'm bringing up this topic to 'incite' something. Because that certainly is not the case. If it was, I'd be straight up about it.

I do.

I think the issue is a non-starter unless you wanted to start a fight. BTW: I'm listening to "Desperation Samba" by Jimmy Buffet . . . maybe I'll do his temple work as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aesa

Aesa

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Well, if you want to conclude that then that's fine.

I think you would also know (from my other posts) that I don't keep anything back when I'm giving a point of view on something.

This topic, was nothing more than curiosity. However if it's going to turn into a game of finger pointing because you assume you know the disposition I'm coming from then we'll just not bother.

Period.

I'm honestly really offended by this accusation, because, my intention really was just one of interest. I was genuinely surprised that Joseph ordained colored people into the priesthood, and even moreso that the practice discontinued for a period proceeding from Brigham. I ofcourse was aware that colored people only once again were able to take the priesthood after the 1978 revelation, but initially that was my only understanding.

You should never assume simply based on what you expect of a person.

Edited by Aesa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Lovely12

Guest Lovely12

Posted
Posted · Hidden
Hidden

I thought the official reason for the priesthood ban from the church was "We don't know" and that the ban was never given through revelation. Where does "official" church doctrine teach that blacks are the mark of cain? This is all new to me.

Link to comment
Guest Lovely12

Guest Lovely12

Posted
Posted · Hidden
Hidden

I would like for everyone to stop lying to me about church history. Before I was baptized, I asked repeatedly to church leaders for answers regarding blacks in the Mormon church. I asked about the priesthood ban, and I was never told it was through revelation! I was also told that Brigham Young had put the ban into effect.(no official reason given) I questioned skin color, curses, etc. And, everyone assured me that those things were false and that skin color only had to do with good/evil (spiritual). Not race.

So, I trusted my bishop and me and my beautiful family were baptized. Years later, a woman made some offensive comments regarding blacks in Relief Society. Being that this was a concern to me from the very beginning, I started researching church history again. I read some very disturbing things that some of our leaders and authorties of the church said. I tried get answers, but no one would be direct and honest with me. Unless, you are a person of color, you really don't realize how this hurts me. This is suppose to be the true chruch! Led by God. Well, God is not racists! I do not believe the ban and the racists things that I have read came through God! Please!

As some of you know, after being sealed in the temple and being active for eight years, my entire family went inactive due to the fact we felt lied to. (you should know, I asked these questions again before making covenants in the temple.) Again, I was assured that the preisthood ban did not occur due to racism (nothing ever mentioned about me being the lineage of Cain either).

So, a month ago, I started having promptings to return to church. These same "spiritual feelings" led me to the church. I lost sleep for a week thinking of nothing but the church. My life was fine. We have always been a close happy family so nothing was missing from my life. But, here I was thnking of the church. My husband informed me that he had prayed about it two weeks prior. Again, I asked for the stake president and bishop to come out to talk to us. They gave no reason for the ban. They said that skin color was not race in the BOM, but spirtual. I prayed about it. I went back to church.

So, is there a secret class for white members? Do you learn that blacks are the lineage of Cain? Were we less valiant in heaven? Is this what you learn? Because I have asked time and time again and was assured none of this was this case. I was told these were anti-mormon people writing these things and taking things out of context. Yet, I am reading from some of you things that I had not heard.

Why does my Patriarchal blessing state my lineage as being the same as some of my white brother and sisters of the church? Why does my blessing go on to say that I fought valiantly in heaven and many wonderful things about me in the pre mortal? The Patriarch holds the priesthood and was ordained by Prophet Hinkley.

I am reading things on these post that totally contradict what was assured to me before I made my sacred vows to God, and I am upset for the "secrets". Unless these are some of the prejudice views of man, and not the church. (which is my belief) God would not keep leading me back to a racist church.

Here is my family's conversion story. We are the second story. Meridian Magazine : : Print

I love the church, but I question why things are kept from me if we are the true church. It really bothers me. I don't want to encourage my family to be fully active again, unless I have all the truth.

Link to comment
pam

pam

Posted
Posted · Hidden
Hidden

Lovely I don't claim to have the answers to all your questions. I do know that there were many extremely racist remarks made by Brigham Young back in the day. Yet many Prophets since that time have made comments that that is NOT what and how the Church feels about black people. By revelation in 1978 blacks were allowed to hold the Priesthood.

There is no secret white class. If you take a look at how much the Church has grown in Africa and other predominately black areas I think you will see that the Church has an entirely different point of view than what Brigham Young and the early members of the church had.

Please don't let that discourage you. Members of every race, creed or color are welcome into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and as far as I'm concerned we are all equal in the eyes of our Heavenly Father.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
Dale

Dale

Posted
Posted

Joseph Smith was giving the priesthood to the linage of Cain but after further revelation put a stop to it [book of Moses].

I think myself nothing in the Book of Moses need be viewed as the final authority on Black's holding priesthood. I myself just think the LDS leaders had so supported the pro-hibition of the ordination of black's they had no testimony they could extricate themselves from the policy. As i understand it for twenty-five years the issue was under debate and it took those years to prepare a leadership and people to prepare themselves for the 1979 lifting of the policy. The only reason the policy wasn't lifted many years earlier was that the LDS people's hearts were not prepared earlier for the change. The people's heart's were hard, so i think God could have left the church open to public criticism as it would help them repent of their stubborness for the old way's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing