Questions for Mormons

[pyxiwulf]

I want the OP to come back! Wonder what he thinks? or if he exists, lol.

Not likely

My parents were sealed to each other long after their divorce, and while still married to their new spouses.

Regards,

Vanhin

Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to share the story? I'm just curious, but that certainly make the Joseph Smith sealings make more sense to me.

Yes. Here and elsewhere. Hence my skepticism from the beginning. That combination of questions wasn't random; at all.

Not. At. All.

[marts1]

I just read that what I had assumed is correct. There was no relations involved so the twilight zone has ended.:)

[marts1]

My wife to be here says "darn it"...j/k

[Vanhin]

My parents were sealed to each other long after their divorce, and while still married to their new spouses.

Regards,

Vanhin

Really? That's very interesting. Would you care to share the story? I'm just curious, but that certainly make the Joseph Smith sealings make more sense to me.

Sure, no problem. I am sure that there are others here who have first hand experience with divorce and sealed couples, but basically here's the scoop. If a couple who is sealed is divorced, the sealing is not automatically cancelled. The couple will remain sealed until the sealing is cancelled. For my parents, when they were ready to be sealed to their new spouses, they requested a cancellation from the First Presidency, who authorized it, and they are now sealed to their current spouses.

They would have been in violation of the law of chastity had they "got together" (if you know what I mean) while they were still sealed but civilly divorced.

I used this as a contemporary example of how a man and a woman can be "sealed" to one another, and be married to another at the same time, and the relationship not be conjugal between the sealed couple.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited February 22, 2010 by Vanhin

[fatguy]

This was not a ghost thread meant to "stump Mormons" and fish for hate. It's an honest inquiry about how believing Mormons justify certain insinuations.

Having been visited by missionaries, I have been trying to wrap my head around the religion from a non-bias historical perspective. I doubt most of the information from these "anti-ex-mormon" websites and forums is acceptably neutral, so I dared to post here to see what actual Mormons would say instead, because your responses deserve as much respect.

The FAIR wiki is an excellent source of information. I've been reading its articles all about this. Also I was impressed by its amazing page on philosophical fallacy.

I honestly hope to avoid tension. If this thread doesn't suit your tastes for debate, just leave it alone. If it doesn't belong in this forum, I apologize and hope a moderator deletes it before it causes any trouble.

The insinuations behind these questions need to be addressed. So far responses have been somewhat empty and inadequate.

I have read explanations on non-mormon websites citing quotes from Brigham Young and other Prophets. However, I understand the validity of these is up to speculation due to anti-mormon bias, which is why I prefer a personal rebuttal from actual Mormons.

For the first question (why blacks weren't allowed the Priesthood until 1978)...

Alma 3: 6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

This seems to mean people with dark skin were inherently evil from birth?

"Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.'' (History of the Church, Volume 5, pp.218-219)

This quote may possibly be in the black man's favor, as a proposal against a popularly violent country in favor of equality, but it doesn't seem likely. Why restrict them to their own "species"?

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66).

Once again, black people are inherently evil from before birth, and slavery is their own fault?

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty." Brigham Young, "The Persecutions of the Saints, etc.," (8 March 1863) Journal of Discourses 10:111.

The FAIR wiki proposes that Brigham Young was actually defending black women who were raped by white men. I can understand this approach, but it seems insufficient due to the blatant nature of the quote. The statement is very clear that any white man from the priesthood who has sex with any black person has committed an atrocious crime in God's eyes.

I realize that most non-LDS critics hold a double-standard. Mormons were probably equally or less racist than many of their counterpart religions during the Civil War era, and even throughout the 20th century. Racism was very common and very popular among all groups of people in those times, so there's little foundation for a fair racist argument particularly against Mormons.

I'll note here that I do not belong to another religion that seeks to discredit Mormons in favor of itself. This question belongs in all the historical debates of all the religions that claim they followed the true prophet of peace through turbulent times.

However, it begs the questions:

:confused:Why would a true prophet of God make these remarks in the first place? Why would the pure voice of a peace-loving God play by the racial currents of his environment?

:confused:Wouldn't a prophet with access to the pure voice of God have heard long before then, that this racism was one of the most abhorrent things?

:confused:If the Book of Mormon is completely the true voice of God, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were utterly his true prophets, why would the church ever need to change its doctrines based on current political atmospheres? This is a double standard on the opposite side: the book and word are utterly true, but fallible?

Thanks to anyone willing to debate.

[fatguy]

Oh, and just to lighten the mood after all this, here's a hippo in a bikini.

[JohnOF123]

hey, fatguys back! and he brought a friend, a pretty ugly one at that.

[fatguy]

I won't have you saying such things about my Bessie.

[JohnOF123]

I won't have you saying such things about my Bessie.

Well I enjoy a good debate as well. But I don't think I belong in this one. Good luck in your search for truth fatguy!

[Vanhin]

Also I was impressed by its amazing page on philosophical fallacy.

Then you are probably familiar with "’Argumentum ad nauseam". Check the link if you are unsure.

Do we really need to have the same arguments each time someone wants to test their mettle with the Mormons? And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people here willing and capable of "debate". If they want to they will, but I'm not sure why it would be any more special this time around. We cover these topics, all the time...

If you are really interested in "researching" the LDS religion, as you indicated in in the original post, do some searches of these forums and read the many responses that have been given, or keep reading FairLDS articles. Those are the answers you'll get from us this time around too, just worded slightly different. At the very least, take our answers for what they are worth and write them down for your research purposes. What does debate have to do with it?

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited February 23, 2010 by Vanhin

[NeuroTypical]

Why would the pure voice of a peace-loving God play by the racial currents of his environment?

Just out of curiosity, do you believe the Bible to be the word of God? Wondering how you explain Ezra 2:59-62 (denied the priesthood apparently because they could not prove they were of the proper ancestry). Or Daniel 11:35 "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." Or Lamentations 4:6-8 "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick."

Is this some of the 'peace-loving God playing by the racial currents of his environment' who thinks 'racism was one of the most abhorrent things'??

LM

[bytebear]

Another thing to consider is how other Christian groups treated blacks in their history. It is far uglier than anything the Mormons ever did. So ugly, in fact, that most Christians either deny it or claim it as not part of their own personal religious heritage, but the fact is, Mormons were baptizing blacks and claiming they could be saved, while other Christians were claiming blacks had no souls and were sub-human. The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Christian denomination in the US outside of Catholicism) was established for the explicit purpose of ensuring slavery remained, whereas Mormons were abolitionists and Joseph Smith preached for the freeing of slaves. The South still has segregated congregations, where none has ever existed in Mormonism. So, you can criticize Mormon history, but pull that beam out of your own eye first.

[Elphaba]

I just read that what I had assumed is correct. There was no relations involved so the twilight zone has ended.

Why do you think there were no relations? Some of the women admitted to having had sex with Joseph.

Elphqgq

[rameumptom]

Interesting site. Now how does that work with the women still being married to their first husbands since women can't be polygamist? Or did I miss something major?

women CAN be polygamist, since the term means a man with multiple wives.

Polyandry is where women have more than one husband.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were pragmatists. There are instances of polyandry in the Church. Joseph Smith was married to some women who were civilly married. They remained married to their husbands, but were sealed to Joseph for eternity.

In Deseret, there was a couple where the man was impotent. Brigham Young granted the woman to also marry another man for time, who could give seed to the first man.

[rameumptom]

There are some things we all need to consider here. First, Joseph Smith was restoring ancient things. He was not interested in modern society's interpretation of what God was commanding him to do. Some things to consider:

1. If he were a fraud, with an interest in bedding women, It would have been far easier for him to just have a few women on the side, rather than create such an extensive system of polygamy/polyandry.

2. In the mid-1800s, it was very common for non-LDS people to up and leave one family, and set up a new family in a new area. Joseph was intent on caring for family, making it eternal.

3. Joseph's view of eternal marriage is different than our own today (even in the Church). He saw it as a way to create one big happy eternal family. Today,we focus on our immediate families. He was sealed to women that either didn't have a good chance of eternal marriage with their current spouse, or was sealed to women that would bind his family with other families.

4. Even with the issue of marrying young girls of 14, it was not a sexual thing with him, but a dynastic one. It bound earthly families together, making them all a part of his own family in the eternities.

5. Just because a woman was sealed to Joseph, it did not mean the other husband had nothing to do with the future relationship. President Heber J. Grant was called in his early 20s as an apostle. He wanted to know why, and prayed about it. In a dream, he saw Jedediah M. Grant, his biological father, and Joseph Smith (who was sealed to his mother, and therefore Heber was sealed to Joseph) both pleading before the bar of God to ordain Heber as an apostle. In this dream, we see just how Joseph's dynasty works even in the spirit world.

5. God and his prophets are pragmatists. They seek to provide the best options in an imperfect universe. Polygamy/Polyandry can solve some problems in certain situations.

[rameumptom]

Another thing to consider is how other Christian groups treated blacks in their history. It is far uglier than anything the Mormons ever did. So ugly, in fact, that most Christians either deny it or claim it as not part of their own personal religious heritage, but the fact is, Mormons were baptizing blacks and claiming they could be saved, while other Christians were claiming blacks had no souls and were sub-human. The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Christian denomination in the US outside of Catholicism) was established for the explicit purpose of ensuring slavery remained, whereas Mormons were abolitionists and Joseph Smith preached for the freeing of slaves. The South still has segregated congregations, where none has ever existed in Mormonism. So, you can criticize Mormon history, but pull that beam out of your own eye first.

This is very true. The Southern Baptist Convention broke away from the American Baptists over the slavery issue. The SBC insisted that blacks were descended from Cain/Canaan, and were by Biblical law supposed to be slaves. Many in the SBC also taught blacks had no soul. I guess it made it easier to justify their actions.

And of course, this wasn't just in the 1800s. Just 50 years ago, Governor George Wallace stated, "segregation yesterday, segregation today, and segregation tomorrow" as he raised the Confederate Battle Flag over the state capitol. That flag, which once was just a historic battle flag, but now represented racism, stayed over the Alabama capitol building until the 1990s.

I don't suggest that Mormon racism is good. I'm just saying that there is a contextual issue here, and if we condemn Mormonism for not giving priesthood until 1978, then we should be condemning the SBC and others for enslaving people, going to war to keep slavery alive, starting the KKK, voting against the Civil Rights Act (such as Al Gore's Dad), and electing people like George Wallace to office.

[Blackmarch]

Hey Blackmarch, I've seen you around christianforums.com! what's up. i just realized cause of the panther.

heya! sweet now i'm racking my brains to remember you lol <racks brains>.

I didn't know that the LDS believed this.

some do, some don't, some don't know. It's really not that big an issue in the church.

How many wives do they think or agree he had?

I think the count is somewhere between 10 and 33 that he was sealed to during mortality. There's so many different claims. After his death there have been quite a few that have chosen to be sealed to him in one way or another.

Do they believe he took other mens wives like some claim?

sort of. He was commanded to have the wives of the apostles sealed to him, however while in this life they remained married to their husbands.... At least that's what appears to have happened (realise there is very little accurate or good info on this).

However considering how many of the apostles decided to stay and go through with it really says something about the truth of the work or that it wasn't just a "marriage" thing as we understand marriage IMO.

Which if i recall right was one of the main tests the apostles had to go through, and was one of the factors that caused a few to leave the church.

I must also note that sealing doesn't always mean a marriage.

Sometimes I'll joke around with my wife that I have a revelation to marry a couple of her friends, and that she gets to pick which ones it will be, lol. But she says she would pick the ugliest ones possible, hehe.

hehe you know the old saying.. becareful what you wish for..

Edited February 23, 2010 by Blackmarch

[fatguy]

Then you are probably familiar with "’Argumentum ad nauseam". Check the link if you are unsure.

Do we really need to have the same arguments each time someone wants to test their mettle with the Mormons? And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people here willing and capable of "debate". If they want to they will, but I'm not sure why it would be any more special this time around. We cover these topics, all the time...

If you are really interested in "researching" the LDS religion, as you indicated in in the original post, do some searches of these forums and read the many responses that have been given, or keep reading FairLDS articles. Those are the answers you'll get from us this time around too, just worded slightly different. At the very least, take our answers for what they are worth and write them down for your research purposes. What does debate have to do with it?

Regards,

Vanhin

Hopefully there are people who would join this thread, like myself, who have never asked these questions. I wonder whether common believers actually care about these simple questions and their huge, glaring insinuations.

Believing Mormons should be proud and willing to debate these issues from their own personal perception, representing the strength of faith with knowledge. At worst, talking things through should be fun and interesting.

"Ad nauseam arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else."

This is a backhanded insult to a relevant question on gospel study, not a proper answer. Not applicable. Regardless of how long the debate has been going, these questions are still important, given they are massive obstacles in the way of understanding the church's history. Asking them again is indeed digging up old stones, and I apologize for annoying veteran debaters.

These questions, however, do have a place in a Gospel Discussion forum, and a new thread allows me to participate, rather than dusting off old conversations.

Remember that missionaries came to my door very recently and prescribed the one holy truth. I have the right to ask questions here.

Rather than insulting the conversation, participate with your own unique perceptions.

[fatguy]

Another thing to consider is how other Christian groups treated blacks in their history. It is far uglier than anything the Mormons ever did. So ugly, in fact, that most Christians either deny it or claim it as not part of their own personal religious heritage, but the fact is, Mormons were baptizing blacks and claiming they could be saved, while other Christians were claiming blacks had no souls and were sub-human. The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Christian denomination in the US outside of Catholicism) was established for the explicit purpose of ensuring slavery remained, whereas Mormons were abolitionists and Joseph Smith preached for the freeing of slaves. The South still has segregated congregations, where none has ever existed in Mormonism. So, you can criticize Mormon history, but pull that beam out of your own eye first.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe the Bible to be the word of God? Wondering how you explain Ezra 2:59-62 (denied the priesthood apparently because they could not prove they were of the proper ancestry). Or Daniel 11:35 "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." Or Lamentations 4:6-8 "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick."

Is this some of the 'peace-loving God playing by the racial currents of his environment' who thinks 'racism was one of the most abhorrent things'??

Thanks for responding.

Had you read my entire post in the first place, you would have found this:

I'll note here that I do not belong to another religion that seeks to discredit Mormons in favor of itself.

Not only that, you would have found this:

I realize that most non-LDS critics hold a double-standard. Mormons were probably equally or less racist than many of their counterpart religions during the Civil War era, and even throughout the 20th century.

I utterly agree with you in these responses. The Bible contains heinous racism, sexism, and violence throughout, and Christians are likely guilty of as much racism as anyone else in historical America and beyond. Please realize I'm agnostic and secular. I do not believe the Bible, nor the Quran, nor Dianetics or anything else to the be the word of God.

I will not participate in sparring matches between faiths. I have no place in that conversation. These responses do not explain away the historical evidence of racism in the early Mormon church, rather they try to shift the blame to others.

This same question, in varied form, should doubtlessly be in all the other religions' forums as well:

I am not interested in calling out Mormons as racists. Logically, the historically validated presence of racism in early Mormonism begs the question:

How can a true prophet of Jesus prescribe to racism in the first place? Are the book and the word the pure voice of God, or are they fallible to the evolution of our culture?

Edited February 23, 2010 by fatguy
cleaned it up a bit

[Vanhin]

Hopefully there are people who would join this thread, like myself, who have never asked these questions. I wonder whether common believers actually care about these simple questions and their huge, glaring insinuations.

Believing Mormons should be proud and willing to debate these issues from their own personal perception, representing the strength of faith with knowledge. At worst, talking things through should be fun and interesting.

"Ad nauseam arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else."

This is a backhanded insult to a relevant question on gospel study, not a proper answer. Not applicable. Regardless of how long the debate has been going, these questions are still important, given they are massive obstacles in the way of understanding the church's history. Asking them again is indeed digging up old stones, and I apologize for annoying veteran debaters.

These questions, however, do have a place in a Gospel Discussion forum, and a new thread allows me to participate, rather than dusting off old conversations.

Remember that missionaries came to my door very recently and prescribed the one holy truth. I have the right to ask questions here.

Rather than insulting the conversation, participate with your own unique perceptions.

As moderators, we keep an eye on things on these forums. That's what we do. You have a chance to prove me wrong. If you haven't already, become familiar with the rules, especially rule #1:

"Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

Enjoy the debate.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Kukui]

:confused:Wouldn't a prophet with access to the pure voice of God have heard long before then, that this racism was one of the most abhorrent things?

My perception of the way you ask the questions is just because you can’t think of any reason that G-d would deny the priesthood to someone, therefore Mormons have to be racist or were racist at one time. I could be wrong in my perception, but I will try anyway.

Consider the following non-doctrinal, highly speculative scenario. I give the following story only as a plausible explanation only. I do not claim it is true.

What if – when Cain killed Able, he not only killed Able but he also killed all of Able’s posterity? True statement. Many of Able’s posterity could have been eligible for the priesthood through righteousness. True statement.

What if God in his judgment and mercy declared that Cain’s posterity could not hold the priesthood until such time that Able’s posterity could also hold the priesthood? Plausible, but we don’t know.

We know that in the early church a few blacks were given the priesthood; like the black family that came west with the saints. When Brigham Young received the revelation that blacks were not to have the priesthood he was not given a plausible explanation such as given above. The Lord just said don’t do it. So Brigham Young was left to his own feelings as to why, and those feelings reflect the feelings of many of his day. Those black folks who received the priesthood did not have the priesthood taken away from them but were ask not to use it.

Brigham Young was exactly the type of personality and character the Lord needed to Moses the saints across thousands of miles of wilderness. He was not perfect but, who could have done better? I salute him. I admire him.

I am so glad that all worthy males have the right to the priesthood and I cry with gladness when I see what the African saints are doing; it is so thrilling.

Kukui

[fatguy]

There are some things we all need to consider here. First, Joseph Smith was restoring ancient things. He was not interested in modern society's interpretation of what God was commanding him to do. Some things to consider:

1. If he were a fraud, with an interest in bedding women, It would have been far easier for him to just have a few women on the side, rather than create such an extensive system of polygamy/polyandry.

2. In the mid-1800s, it was very common for non-LDS people to up and leave one family, and set up a new family in a new area. Joseph was intent on caring for family, making it eternal.

3. Joseph's view of eternal marriage is different than our own today (even in the Church). He saw it as a way to create one big happy eternal family. Today,we focus on our immediate families. He was sealed to women that either didn't have a good chance of eternal marriage with their current spouse, or was sealed to women that would bind his family with other families.

4. Even with the issue of marrying young girls of 14, it was not a sexual thing with him, but a dynastic one. It bound earthly families together, making them all a part of his own family in the eternities.

5. Just because a woman was sealed to Joseph, it did not mean the other husband had nothing to do with the future relationship. President Heber J. Grant was called in his early 20s as an apostle. He wanted to know why, and prayed about it. In a dream, he saw Jedediah M. Grant, his biological father, and Joseph Smith (who was sealed to his mother, and therefore Heber was sealed to Joseph) both pleading before the bar of God to ordain Heber as an apostle. In this dream, we see just how Joseph's dynasty works even in the spirit world.

5. God and his prophets are pragmatists. They seek to provide the best options in an imperfect universe. Polygamy/Polyandry can solve some problems in certain situations.

Thanks again for responding. I'll try to respond in form.

1. I never thought of that, and it makes sense. I'm on the verge of agreeing. However, learning about the early church shows that it was a close, hierarchical organization. Not only was Joseph Smith demanded by God to have plural wives, but the newly written scriptures allowed all the men of the priesthood to participate in polygamy. It's much easier for a large group of men to marry women in the name of God if they are card-carrying members of an organization that demands it. This makes the act socially acceptable and common, especially if relocated away from the rest of society (Utah). It's large-scale group polygamy rather than one man's womanizing, in the name of replenishing the earth.

2. I agree. Imagine the context of the times. A new frontier, Manifest Destiny. A new land to try new things. The very ideas of family were probably going through turbulent changes. This, however, does not justify some of the historical insinuations of pedophilia contained in Mormon scriptures themselves. See D&C quote below.

3. Makes sense. Why would the church need to change its posture on families over the years, though? The FLDS have remained true and devoted to Joseph Smith. Has the modern mainstream Mormon church, then, in effect discarded Joseph Smith's core teachings in favor of social acceptance?

4. The Doctrine and Covenants 132 clearly states that the entire idea behind polygamy was to multiply and replenish the earth. As I study this, it becomes apparent that women were Mormon possessions, to be destroyed if they committed adultery, and passed around for sex. The following makes this abundantly crystal clear:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

5. I'm unclear on how God can possibly be a pragmatist, having supposedly created the imperfect cosmos in the first place. Regardless, I fail to see how polygamy can solve problems. It seems possessive and hurtful to the individuality of young women. What kinds of problems are you proposing that it solves?

Edited February 23, 2010 by fatguy

[fatguy]

Thanks for responding, Kukui.

We know that in the early church a few blacks were given the priesthood; like the black family that came west with the saints.

I looked this up and you're right. It's a surprise to me and something to think about.

When Brigham Young received the revelation that blacks were not to have the priesthood he was not given a plausible explanation such as given above...

Here is a quote I found explaining the original revelation:

"What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth,. the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain . they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings,. until the times of the restitution shall come . Then Cain's seed will be had in remembrance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off. (Brigham Young Addresses, dated February 5, 1852).

So, until all white men (posterity of Abel) had received the priesthood, blacks were not to receive the priesthood.

It's baffling how this can be undermined later on simply because it's culturally demanded; this prophet was very clear. Do Mormons still believe that all black people carry the mark of Cain or not?

If so, it's a racist belief demanded by the scriptures. If not, the prophets are fallible.

[Vanhin]

So, until all white men (posterity of Abel) had received the priesthood, blacks were not to receive the priesthood.

It's baffling how this can be undermined later on simply because it's culturally demanded; this prophet was very clear.

I think you should also know that this policy, that lasted until 1978, concerned only blacks of African descent. The following group of Autralian Aborigines, for example, would have been eligible to receive the priesthood, had they prepared for it like any other man (baptism, age, worthiness, etc...).

In fact, no other people of color have ever been prohibited from receiving the priesthood. Even the Lamanites, in the Book of Mormon, were completely eligible for the priesthood, if they were worthy, like any Nephite man.

This seems to argue against white supremacy in the Church at any time. The ban was towards people of a specific lineage.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Kukui]

…but the newly written scriptures allowed all the men of the priesthood to participate in polygamy.

My understanding does not coincide with your statement. My understanding is that to take on an additional wife was a calling by a priesthood authority. A person didn’t just decide on there own to take on more wives. However, some abused this privilege. The callings went to those men who could afford to support more than one wife. My wife’s family who lived in Nauvoo and Utah were on the poor side and were never asked to participate. The more well to do ones were.

The system of polygamy worked well for it’s time and circumstance when there were many more women than men in the wilderness of Utah even though it started earlier.

No woman was denied an inheritance of the Lord due to lack of worthy priesthood holders.

Kukui

Edited February 23, 2010 by Kukui