Questions for Mormons

[fatguy]

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

Interesting.

However, I am intimidated to respond to you. As a moderator, you jumped in and opined on the subject. I respond respectfully, and you threaten me with the acute possibility of banning me for breaking the rules, which I haven't done. I tried to make it graciously clear that I am not here to spew derogatory remarks and I am not an anti-Mormon propagandist.

Once again, I say if this conversation doesn't belong in the gospel discussion forum, you should delete its entirety now and I'll seek answers elsewhere from non-Mormons.

Will you show evidence that the ban was based on lineage rather than skin color? That's a hefty statement and could answer the question fully for me.

Much I have found shows that black skin or color was the mark of Cain, not lineage:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).

[James_Fryman]

1) Until 1978, the Mormon church forbid black people to hold the priesthood. Why?

We dont know why really, my best guess would be that The effects of allowing Black Male Men to hold the Priesthood would be worse than if they werent, possibly from the fact that enemies of the church would use that as an attack against the Church (remember the time period) but theyve always been allowed to be members

2) Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Why?

Pologamy has been allowed to increase the population of the kingdom of God, I would say that God felt The population of the church was low and needed a boost

3) No DNA or archeological study shows any evidence of the huge populations the Book of Mormon claims lived in North America. Why?

FAIR answers this well

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence

4) The Fundamentalist LDS church behaves in radically perverted ways, yet still worships the same book and religious leaders. Why?

The same thing happened with the bible didnt it? people pick and chose what they wanted and got rid of the rest

[fatguy]

4) The Fundamentalist LDS church behaves in radically perverted ways, yet still worships the same book and religious leaders. Why?

The same thing happened with the bible didnt it? people pick and chose what they wanted and got rid of the rest

I agree. However, what I'm getting at is that the mainstream modern LDS church is the one that pick and chose.

Evidence shows that the FLDS church is actually following the teachings of early prophets to the letter, whereas the mainstream church has conveniently changed revelation and ignored historical insinuations to suit social tastes. This may or may not be a bad thing, but it is something that needs to be recognized.

[Kukui]

I love that picture! It kind of reminds me of my 9th grade annual picture. Just think of how beautiful the young people are today compared to the way we used to look just 50 or 60 years ago. The most beautiful girl 50 years ago would hardly be average today. Course we know that beauty is just skin deep and we all know how deep ugly goes.

And just think anyone in that picture, if they are humble (which most of them are), and righteous, and keep the commandments, and receive the ordinances – just think – G-d has the power to raise them up to the highest levels of exaltation. The mind can scarcely comprehend it. Our Father in heaven most likely would have an easier time of getting them to exaltation than me; yet He keeps trying with me. It blows me away.

Look at them. Can you see gods in there? Heavenly Father does.

[He] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Makes me happy.

Kukui

[Finrock]

Good afternoon fatguy! I hope you are doing well. :)

I agree. However, what I'm getting at is that the mainstream modern LDS church is the one that pick and chose.

Evidence shows that the FLDS church is actually following the teachings of early prophets to the letter, whereas the mainstream church has conveniently changed revelation and ignored historical insinuations to suit social tastes. This may or may not be a bad thing, but it is something that needs to be recognized.

I don't mean to question your motives, but based simply on the content of your posts, you are using emotive and negatively charged words and phrases in your questions and comments about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In your posts you have also setup false dichotomies. It seems, based on simply the content of your posts, that you have already drawn unfavorable conclusions before you have asked the questions.

I would suggest, politely, that a person such as you who is sincerely seeking answers and researching the LDS church, that instead of drawing conclusions, setting up false dichotomies and using emotive and negative phrases and terms in your discussion about the church, you present your language in a less judgmental and in a more respectful fashion.

Again, I trust when you say you are sincere, so I'm only pointing out how your language on this forum is coming off.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Vanhin]

Interesting.

Will you show evidence that the ban was based on lineage rather than skin color? That's a hefty statement and could answer the question fully for me.

Well that was the policy then. Even your quotes from Brigham Young and others, make it clear that it was blacks of African descent who were prohibited. With this bit of knowledge as your guide, you will probably notice how often "blacks of African descent" are mentioned in conjunction with this policy while doing your research. Here's quote from religioustolerance.org.

In spite of the ban on ordination for African-Americans, ordination and higher levels in the priesthood were permitted for Australian aboriginal males, Polynesian men, and other non-whites... (Resolution of racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons))

Also, almost every article at fairlds.org makes mention of this distinction.

Much I have found shows that black skin or color was the mark of Cain, not lineage:

Don't get me wrong, especially in the early days, the "dark skin" of black Africans was surely preached as the "mark", but it was the lineage that received the ban. Even whites who were descendants of black Africans were banned from the priesthood, and the policy was made clear later that it did not concern other people of color. This is evident in the routine ordination other non-white peoples prior to 1978.

In fact, LDS historians would argue that that the real pressure for removing the ban was coming from South and Central America, where it was difficult to enforce the ban because people did not know if they had black African descent or not. It was becoming apparent that men of black African descent were being ordained and receiving their temple covenants and they did not even know it.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Saguaro]

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.

The idea that there were more women than men is a false justification for polygamy.

Apostle John A Widstoe said:

“Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.

The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church...

The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, as would be expected in a pioneer state. The births within the Church obey the usual population law - a slight excess of males...

The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence...

The principle of plural marriage came by revelation from the Lord. That is the reason why the Church practiced it.” (Widtsoe, John A., “Evidences And Reconciliation”, pgs 307 – 310, The Bookcraft Company, 1943, Salt Lake City, Utah)

[ttribe]

Will you show evidence that the ban was based on lineage rather than skin color? That's a hefty statement and could answer the question fully for me.

Black Fijian men were given the priesthood years before the 1978 revelation, for example.

[ttribe]

If not, the prophets are fallible.

Of course prophets are fallible. Whoever said otherwise?

[rameumptom]

Fat guy asks:

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?

It is an issue of realizing that prophets of Jesus are not infallible. They receive divine instruction, but then must try and put it into context with what one understands. Joseph Smith received the gold plates, and presumed that the Nephites filled all the Americas. At least he did until his later years, when he began to understand that it all took place in Mesoamerica.

Revelation is given "line upon line, precept upon precept" as a people are ready to receive it. I believe that the priesthood ban was done because of an event at Winter Quarters. There, an apostate black elder tried to start his own harem of white women. This would have affected the racial sensitivities of anyone in the 19th century. The fear of blacks and whites marrying in the temple became an instant problem. It was easy for certain members to read the common Protestant belief of a curse of Cain/Canaan into the scriptures, and to believe that it meant they were cursed according to the priesthood. After all, the Book of Abraham states that Pharaoh was cursed as to the priesthood, and back then it was presumed it was due to his African black skin (even though the scripture does not explicitly state that).

The Lord often held off on revealing more revelation until the members and/or the world were ready. For most of its history, America would not have accepted a Mormon Church that allowed mixed marriages in the temple. The Church was already struggling under attacks over polygamy and other issues. It was almost destroyed for holding onto polygamy until 1890, years after the Supreme Court stated that laws against polygamy were legal. A large issue over blacks in the Church would have prevented baptisms, increased attacks on the Church, etc.

I believe the Lord allowed the ban to go on until America had prepared itself for Civil Rights and integration, and the Church was strong enough to handle any attacks. This same thing occurred regarding baptizing Gentiles in the book of Acts - Christians didn't do it until they were strong enough to move forward with it.

In 1978, a temple was about to be dedicated in Brazil, where there are thousands of mixed-race people to deal with in regards to priesthood and temple. People in Africa were writing letters to SLC begging to be baptized and to have missionaries sent to them. The world was ready, and the Church was strong enough to receive the revelation. BTW, I spent 17 years in the South, working in the inner cities and helping to build the missionary work amongst the blacks in Montgomery and Tuskegee, Alabama. It took us years to help the individual members to overcome their racism. 25 years later, it is an entirely different place than when we started. And I assure you that with the Southern racist issues of the past, it could not have occurred previously.

Unlike Baptists and others, we do not have segregated congregations. It was difficult in the 1980s to integrate blacks into the mostly white congregations. Now, most of them are well mixed. Meanwhile, most Southern Protestant congregations are still segregated by choice of the followers.

We must remember: God loves racists, especially when they repent. Christ came to be physician for the sick, for the healthy do not need a doctor. We give cancer patients radiation treatments over a period of weeks or months, not all in one dose. God is patient, so that he can save as many of his children as is possible.

We believe in continual revelation and enlightenment. Why? Because we are not ready for all truth at this moment. But with time, we grow towards greater truth and light.

[Elphaba]

When Brigham Young received the revelation that blacks were not to have the priesthood

What revelation?

he was not given a plausible explanation such as given above.

He clearly taught the ban was due to the "curse of Cain." How do you know that wasn't the explanation he was given?

Elphaba

[ttribe]

What revelation?

That is an excellent question.

[Kukui]

What revelation?

Good point. I was speaking from memory and not from any source. My apologies. Generally we were told in times past that it began with Brigham Young. We don’t know when. We don’t know why. There is no known revelation instructing the withholding to begin. President Gordon B. Hinckley has stated that we don’t know why.

There are records that show:

1836: In March, Elijah Abel, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1836: In December, Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Seventy.

1844: Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1846: William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

A plausible explanation by some, and a person would have to go back and read early Mormon history to verify this, is that either Brigham Young or other brethren may have read the following verse:

Abr. 1: 26

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

and may have decided this verse (revelation) applied to Blacks.

However, now that you asked the question and I read into it a little deeper, I like President Gordon B. Hinckley’s statement that, “we don’t know why”, and we don’t know exactly when but certainly it appears that it would have started after William McCary ordination in 1846.

Kukui

[rameumptom]

IIRC, William McCary tried starting his own polygamous group near Winter Quarters around 1847-8. He was living with several white women, which enraged several members, who took it to Brigham Young. It is likely that this incident began the search for reasons to prevent blacks from receiving temple blessings. Chances are, members began using the reading in Abraham 1:26 as justification, and Brigham Young accepted it without any revelatory guidance.

At least, that's how I see it probably happening. Members were freaking out over mixed celestial marriages. There were a few scriptures that could conveniently be used to justify a ban, and it fit in well with 19th century attitudes and beliefs concerning blacks (not human, no soul, curse of Caan/Canaan, etc). Brigham Young saw this as a way to prevent huge divisions and apostasy in the Church, and he used it for the Church's survival.

Such concerns over mixed marriages carried over into recent times, when Pres Kimball expressed concerns on it. He made his statements primarily over cultural differences and how such differences placed additional strains on relationships that are difficult enough without adding extra struggles.

[Elphaba]

Good point. I was speaking from memory and not from any source. My apologies. Generally we were told in times past that it began with Brigham Young. We don’t know when. We don’t know why. There is no known revelation instructing the withholding to begin. President Gordon B. Hinckley has stated that we don’t know why.

There are records that show:

1836: In March, Elijah Abel, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1836: In December, Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Seventy.

1844: Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1846: William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

Yes, I am aware of all of this.

My problem with your posts is that you are careless with historical events. Saguaro has already pointed out your mistake where you said polygamy was instituted because there were more women than men. That is a significant error.

Next, you wrote of a revelation that never happened. This is not a benign act, in that people who are not well-versed in Mormon history will read your post and think there was a revelation, when there was not.

A plausible explanation by some, and a person would have to go back and read early Mormon history to verify this. . . .

YOU, as the author of the post, are the one who should go back and read early Mormon history BEFORE you post "plausible" reasons for the ban.

Haphazardly throwing out plausibilities is also not a benign act, in that some people will read it, and think what you wrote makes sense, and therefore, it must be true, when, in fact, it may not be true at all.

It is your responsibility to make sure that what you write in your posts is historically accurate, not the reader's.

Elphaba

Edited February 25, 2010 by Elphaba
Changed the word "instigated" to "instituted."

[Moksha]

I think I'd have to pack up my wife and make like a tree, heh.

Now you see me, now you don't.

"Hey where did that guy go, he was here just a minute ago."

Posts like this deserve the laugh button. Loved it!

[Moksha]

The Prophet Joseph Smith approved the ordaining of black men. That should be the clue to the whole thing.

[Mute]

This is an interesting forum topic. I saved everything and all links everyone posted. I'll look at them and see what I can learn. I've heard various things about all of these subjects many times before but I never went through and tried to verify what was true. I hope these links help. These were topics that personally troubled me a great deal in the past. I'm agnostic and so they don't trouble me as much anymore but they still make me sad some what. I hope you find the answers you were looking for Fatguy.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I am researching the LDS religion and would highly appreciate straightforward answers to these questions. I am not fishing for hate, nor am I attempting to insult anyone's beliefs. These are honest questions that demand answers.

You are correct, but at the same time, the answers we expect are not always the ones that are avaliable, nor are they the ones that ultimately are given. In that spirit I'll answer them according to my understanding, then comment after. Here goes.

1) Until 1978, the Mormon church forbid black people to hold the priesthood. Why?

Short answer, because that's how the scriptures were interpreted at the time. Longer answer, because much of america held racist views for decades after slavery was abolished. The leaders of the LDS Church at the time might have just been racist in their interpretation of the scriptures. At the same time, they did feel as though they had a doctrinal standing for their position, so in the end who knows whether it was right or not? The fact of the matter is that such is no longer the case.

Nor was the LDS Church the only one to have racially based restrictions upon its members. Some minor religions maintain them to this day.

2) Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Why?

Because it was a commandment from God to do so. I could also ask why Abraham practiced it, as well as Jacob, who brought forth the twelve tribes of Israel from four wives. The uncomfortable fact (for some) is that polygamy is a Biblically acceptable doctrine that was practiced by some of the biggest names in the bible. Instead of asking why Joseph Smith practied it, we can learn more by asking why God accepted it as a proper situation in the Bible.

3) No DNA or archeological study shows any evidence of the huge populations the Book of Mormon claims lived in North America. Why?

That's simple; because they were wiped out four hundred years after Jesus' birth. The Philistines of the OT lived in a known area far longer, yet there are no genetic remnants of their society...what's up with that? Also, even with the populations indicated in the BoM, we are unsure of exactly how pervasive, or widespread, the society was physically. On top of that, genes thin out quickly through just a few generations. One would be quite surprised to see the hebraic genes remain intact after nearly three millenia.

Secondly, the Americas present an immense area to study archaeologically. While there hasn't been any major finds to date, there have been some significant possibilities. After all, the BoM predicted domesticated barley before it was known to exist here anciently. In the '60's a basket of domesticated barley was found in an archaeological dig. So what are the odds that Joseph Smith just guessed and got it right...over a hundred years after the fact?

We simply haven't managed to expose every major or even many minor archaeological sites because it's an expensive, time-consuming, and labor-heavy endeavour. It's a lot of work, and such work takes time. We haven't had the 'king Tut moment' yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't there waiting to be found.

4) The Fundamentalist LDS church behaves in radically perverted ways, yet still worships the same book and religious leaders. Why?

Because they have drawn their own conclusions from the same books. Ask yourself why the Seventh Day Adventists are so radically different from Baptists...yet they worship the same Jesus and use the same Bible.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear things up.

These are important questions, but they are not central to what you may be asking in general. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but these issues, while important, miss the main point of what the LDS Church is about, what it preaches, and what its goals are.

[Danite]

What our non-LDS friends, really don't understand about members of the LDS church is that we believe in revelation through the Lords prophets. When the Lord commands that it's time to do this or that, then it's time. This is his church, not mine or even the prophets. If you believe that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and his son Jesus Christ and that he translated the Book of Mormon the way he said he did. Then he can be trusted with the rest. The real question to me is Joseph Smith the Lords Prophet? and my answer is yes So in my view he can be trusted on these other matters