Blacks, Indians And Questions.

[sixpacktr]

CK,

I know you don't think that about BY. I was talking of others that seem to have a problem with Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, etc. I don't know, I just get kind of tired of this whole second guessing type of thing that goes on. I don't have a problem with conjecture and wondering aloud why things are the way they are, but some cross a line when they impune the character or integrity or even smarts of some of the apostles/prophets because it doesn't fall in line with what they think it should be. The same goes for those that criticize their Bishop or Stake President.

It ain't easy folks, it just ain't. And if you are headed down that road of questioning what those in authority have stated and it affects your testimony of their calling, that is a bad road to go down...

[a-train]

Most def Sixpack. Word.

-a-train

[amigo108]

I'm definitely no authority but I think that if there wasn't a ban on blacks holding the PH the church might not have survived the times. It's a miracle they survived the persecution as it is, can you imagine if they were fully integrated. It would've been more fuel in the anti-Mormon fire. I don't know whether or not this had any bearing on why God didn't allow it but I wouldn't be surprised.

Good thing for continual revelation huh? Otherwise we still might not have PH of color and that would drive many people away (including me).

[Dr T]

Hello David R.,

Welcome to LDS Talk. You bring up a very interesting idea. If, as you believe, God had planned for Joseph Smith to "restore the church," chose him in teh time and place that he did, etc. do you believe that it would not have happened/it could have been thwarted by "persecution," in spite of God’s plan?

[a-train]

The Kingdom of God on earth cannot be thwarted nor destroyed by the wicked.

Although I am not aware of any authoritative assertion that the priesthood would not go to those of certain lineage until the 1970's for the purpose of the preservation of the Church, if we are to imagine that this was the reason for such a strategy and had it not been inacted a great destruction would have fallen on the LDS people, we can say that the LORD in His wisdom kept this from occuring through this, His own means.

Still, this is all speculation. We have no such authoritative answer and what little we do have is somewhat ambiguous and even Brigham Young said he didn't fully understand the particulars of the issue. However, he and others all said that the priesthood would eventually be restored to all and the LDS people looked forward to that time forward until the announcement came that the time had arrived.

This is no different from the looking forward by the LDS people for the rest of the writings on the golden plates to be revealed, or for the Church to move it's headquarters back east again, or for the missionaries to be able to serve in every land on earth. There will be surprising news from Salt Lake, from the First Presidency and from the Twelve again some day. The LDS people expect it. We know that the potential exists every day. Those who are faithful are working hard to be ready for these types of things.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Very well said, a-train. Have you ever thought of writing a book? B)

[Dr T]

The Kingdom of God on earth cannot be thwarted nor destroyed by the wicked.

I agree Train. That's why I have difficulty believing that there was a need for a "restoration" or a complete "apostasy."

[amigo108]

Hello David R.,

Welcome to LDS Talk. You bring up a very interesting idea. If, as you believe, God had planned for Joseph Smith to "restore the church," chose him in teh time and place that he did, etc. do you believe that it would not have happened/it could have been thwarted by "persecution," in spite of God’s plan?

I believe that the restoration occurred (and is continuing) as God planned. I think of the restoration as a leaf floating down a river. Whether it goes a foot to the left or the right is of no consequence, the final destination will be the same....downstream. When it gets hung up on a rock or trapped in a stagnant pool, then intervention (revelation) is needed to get us back on track. We saints are human, imperfect, and have free will. So that will cause the leaf (the church) to move at varying speed and course, but always downstream fueled by the power of the Holy Spirit. With that said, He knows us and our limitations and imperfections so I'm sure things are going as He planned. In the end, I don't think the restoration could have been thwarted, but I do believe that it could have been delayed and slowed down. We do have free will so we can choose to be disobedient if we wish. Keep in mind, this is all my opinion and I could be partially or completely wrong.

I have doubts about the mark of Cain doctrine (not necessarily the part about denying priesthood to blacks but the explanation as to why), but I take comfort in the belief that if a prophet were to err, the Church has a system for correcting itself, namely continued revelation. Time has proven that we are not capable of just taking scriptures and correctly interpreting and living them without continual guidance.

Although what's right and wrong does not change, what is most correct for the times obviously does. Polygamy is a good example of that fact. Although denying priesthood to worthy males and having multiple wives is clearly wrong. There were times when the negative results of doing what is right made it more wrong to deny the blessings of the priesthood to many women or loose an incalculable number saints because the population was not ready to accept the full truth of the Gospel. The fact that all secrets and mysteries have not been revealed to us is just further evidence that we are not ready. It reminds me of the line from the movie a few good men "you want the truth?? You can't handle the truth!".

[a-train]

The Kingdom of God on earth cannot be thwarted nor destroyed by the wicked.

I agree Train. That's why I have difficulty believing that there was a need for a "restoration" or a complete "apostasy."

Yes, I know. Your logic is sound and correct. The trouble is, there are many LDS that are a little mixed up about The Great Apostasy, this event should NOT be understood as the devil or the wicked destroying God's Kingdom. The Primitive Christian Church was NOT destroyed by the wicked. It was taken from among the people by the LORD, not by the Devil.

-a-train

[Guest Yediyd]

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

I think that the whole mark of Cain and Ham thing is ridiculous. Why would the Lord deny blessings to thousands and thousands of black people just because of what a couple of guys did forever ago? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

this is an awsome point! I don't understand the contridiction here! Either we believe that man is punished for HIS OWN sins, not the sins of others ... or we don't....which is it? the story of moses in the wilderness is confusing to me...meny suffered for the sins of a few...the same with this whole "mark of Cain" stuff. It seems like a contridition in our beliefs...and as a new LDS...I'm baffled.

Through Adam's transgression, death came upon all mankind. What is worse? No priesthood or death? Is anything we take in this life a punishment? Who did sin in the man born blind from his birth, the man or his parents? Remember Jesus' answer to that question? Even if there is a 'priesthood ban', should we infer that it is a punishment? Are we to assume that the crack baby is being punished? Were those children born to Jews in Germany during the holocaust being punished?

NOTHING in this life is a punishment. We live in a probationary state here, a time for us to prepare to meet God, a time wherein we are tested to see if we will do all things whatsoever the LORD our God commands us. How many people died before the Restoration? Was that a punishment? Are the Chinese under the rule of communism who have still not been able to receive the Gospel and the priesthood being punished? We are NOT being punished, we are being tested.

-a-train

wow! A-train....thank you for clearing things up for me so eloquently....You must truly be guided by the Spirit. I have been struggling with the seemingly un-fairness of things...your answer put it all into perspsctive for me....THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! I NEEDED to here that!!!!!

[a-train]

Thanks for the compliments

-a-train

[Guest Yediyd]

CK,

I know you don't think that about BY. I was talking of others that seem to have a problem with Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, etc. I don't know, I just get kind of tired of this whole second guessing type of thing that goes on. I don't have a problem with conjecture and wondering aloud why things are the way they are, but some cross a line when they impune the character or integrity or even smarts of some of the apostles/prophets because it doesn't fall in line with what they think it should be. The same goes for those that criticize their Bishop or Stake President.

It ain't easy folks, it just ain't. And if you are headed down that road of questioning what those in authority have stated and it affects your testimony of their calling, that is a bad road to go down...

HERE, HERE!!!!!!!...Cudos to you, sixpact!

I'm definitely no authority but I think that if there wasn't a ban on blacks holding the PH the church might not have survived the times. It's a miracle they survived the persecution as it is, can you imagine if they were fully integrated. It would've been more fuel in the anti-Mormon fire. I don't know whether or not this had any bearing on why God didn't allow it but I wouldn't be surprised.

Good thing for continual revelation huh? Otherwise we still might not have PH of color and that would drive many people away (including me).

Wow David, very insightfull!!!!! I love these forums...Some of these rosponces have REALLY been helpful to me! I love this church...and I don't want to be discouraged by things I don't understand....this discusion has put that back into pespective for me....thank you...all who take the time to contribute...It's been a learning expeirence for me!

[sharrard_family]

I started reading this post on sunday some time, and i had to stop and think about all of the things that were said. When I got back on today and re-read it all; it was absolutely amazing as to how many people have truly been inspired by the spirit to lend their advice and knowledge. I never knew a whole lot about the blacks and the PH mainly because I am young and this all happend before I was born. I understand so much more and I wish I could offer more advice on this subject, but I belive that all of you have truly hit the nail on the head. This wasn't about one sin from one person... This was the Lord's choice and no one should ever second guess what the Lord has to say. The Lord knows what is best for everyone. He knows what each individual is thinking and He knows what to do and when to do it. That especially goes for the blacks and the PH. He waited until 1978 ( I think that was the year) because that was the right time. Remember when Joseph went to get the scriptures and was told not to touch them and he did... So JS was asked to wait and we had to wait until some time after when He was ready to take on such a huge responsibility. Well most of us know the story so I wont go into, but that is just what I was feeling on the subject.. so take it or leave it. Its all right with me.

[CrimsonKairos]

The trouble is, there are many LDS that are a little mixed up about The Great Apostasy, this event should NOT be understood as the devil or the wicked destroying God's Kingdom. The Primitive Christian Church was NOT destroyed by the wicked. It was taken from among the people by the LORD, not by the Devil.

I view the apostasy as a synthesis of the two stances listed above, to wit: The Lord allowed the wicked to slay his apostles, pervert his gospel, and introduce false doctrines into his Church. Could the Lord have sent the translated John the Revelator into the hinterlands of Siberia and had him establish a Church there with new apostles? Possibly. What I'm getting at is that the Lord didn't "initiate" the removal of his Church...the wicked did that.

So yes, technically the Lord took his Church from among the people by allowing the wicked to temporarily render it powerless. Why? As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8-9).

[amigo108]

Through Adam's transgression, death came upon all mankind. What is worse? No priesthood or death? Is anything we take in this life a punishment? Who did sin in the man born blind from his birth, the man or his parents? Remember Jesus' answer to that question? Even if there is a 'priesthood ban', should we infer that it is a punishment? Are we to assume that the crack baby is being punished? Were those children born to Jews in Germany during the holocaust being punished?

NOTHING in this life is a punishment. We live in a probationary state here, a time for us to prepare to meet God, a time wherein we are tested to see if we will do all things whatsoever the LORD our God commands us. How many people died before the Restoration? Was that a punishment? Are the Chinese under the rule of communism who have still not been able to receive the Gospel and the priesthood being punished? We are NOT being punished, we are being tested.

-a-train

A-train...We are definitely being tested not punished. But we must remember that the majority of hardships we face, the VAST majority, are a direct result of us hurting or even just not loving each other. Imagine a world we we were all reasonable followers of Christ. A world where if I told you that my brother had died, you would react the same as if you got a call that YOUR brother had died (if you have a brother). A world where we couldn't imagine why one would need locks on doors because there is no crime and where welfare was handled on a local level and never abused. In this make believe world there would still be sickness and injury but those things, when they happened would be eased by monumental outpourings of love. And there would be no third world or starvation or war.

My point is that God our father is not putting most of the things that people would THINK are punishments in our path. We are like children who fight and hurt ourselves. And the true obstacle that we face are in our own hearts and minds, the thing that keeps us from being better children, servants and saints is ourselves.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Although what's right and wrong does not change, what is most correct for the times obviously does. Polygamy is a good example of that fact. Although denying priesthood to worthy males and having multiple wives is clearly wrong. There were times when the negative results of doing what is right made it more wrong to deny the blessings of the priesthood to many women or loose an incalculable number saints because the population was not ready to accept the full truth of the Gospel.

Hi David,

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying polygamy is wrong, or it was okay when commanded by God in the 1800s, but is now wrong?

Also, are you saying women should have been given the priesthood, or something different?

Thanks,

Emma

[amigo108]

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying polygamy is wrong, or it was okay when commanded by God in the 1800s, but is now wrong?

Also, are you saying women should have been given the priesthood, or something different?

Thanks,

Emma

Hi Emma. I'm saying that Polygamy is OK when commanded by God and wrong now. And that denying the priesthood to blacks is OK when commanded by God and wrong now. It is my belief that there were circumstances that existed 150 years ago that no longer exist and thus, polygamy and denying PH to blacks is no longer necessary. BTW, I do not know for sure what God's motives or reasons were for the practice of polygamy and for denying the PH to blacks. These statements are just my opinion of possible reasons.

And I'm not saying that women should be given the priesthood. :)

[Snow]

Hello. A young woman I know (who has been kinda exploring the Church) asked me the thorny questions about blacks and the priesthood and the Indian skin color thing from the Book of Mormon. I would appreciate someone providing easy to understand explainations on these issues. Being the typical INTP personality type I can go on and on with an answer but maybe that is not the best way to reach her. So if someone asked you for an explaination as to these issues how would you answer in a simple manner that could reach a feministic agnostic with Christian heritage? I promised an answer soon so...

I assume that someone already answered but my favorite internet piece is:

http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/mauss.html

There's also the full lenght All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage by Armand Mauss that addresses not just blacks but also Native Americans in the context of early and recent LDS views of lineage.

[Dr T]

WB Snow. Long time no read. LDS Talk is missing something without you sir. :)

Edited to fix error of "with" instead of "without"

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying polygamy is wrong, or it was okay when commanded by God in the 1800s, but is now wrong?

Also, are you saying women should have been given the priesthood, or something different?

Thanks,

Emma

Hi Emma. I'm saying that Polygamy is OK when commanded by God and wrong now. And that denying the priesthood to blacks is OK when commanded by God and wrong now. It is my belief that there were circumstances that existed 150 years ago that no longer exist and thus, polygamy and denying PH to blacks is no longer necessary. BTW, I do not know for sure what God's motives or reasons were for the practice of polygamy and for denying the PH to blacks. These statements are just my opinion of possible reasons.

And I'm not saying that women should be given the priesthood. :)

Are you aware of any instances where God said that we should deny blacks the priesthood? If so, could you please be specific.

Why would God deny the priesthood to blacks?

WB Snow. Long time no read. LDS Talk is missing something with you sir. :)

Oh thanks.

I've taken a long break but think of LDS Talk and my fine friends here often.

[amigo108]

I'm not aware that there was ever a scripture saying that the PH should be denied to Blacks, Just that it wasn't church policy to bestow the PH to blacks. I assumed that came from the prophet at the time. I don't know all the details of how/why and weather it was a revelation of some sort or not.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Hi Emma. I'm saying that Polygamy is OK when commanded by God and wrong now. And that denying the priesthood to blacks is OK when commanded by God and wrong now. It is my belief that there were circumstances that existed 150 years ago that no longer exist and thus, polygamy and denying PH to blacks is no longer necessary. BTW, I do not know for sure what God's motives or reasons were for the practice of polygamy and for denying the PH to blacks. These statements are just my opinion of possible reasons.

And I'm not saying that women should be given the priesthood. :)

Thanks for your clarifications David. :)

Emma

[a-train]

Snow,

You just gave me my new favorite website! Thanks! Loving It!

I am a whitey, a total snowflake. But, I went to school in the inner-city and served my mission in North Carolina. Most of the families I taught and baptized were black. When I was maybe 8 or 9, a Sunday-School teacher first told me that blacks were fence-sitters in the pre-mortal world. Of course it wasn't in any manual, the notion wasn't really part of any lesson. The man simply took it upon himself to teach the concept.

I thought about that and wondered. It was later in my life, after my rebellion and then conversion, in my study of the scriptures that I came across the account of the man born blind in John 9. I realized that if that man could have been born blind without reason of sin from either him or his parents, then I see no reason to assume that anyone else born into any circumstance, good or bad, white or black, rich or poor, or otherwise came into such because of righteousness or iniquity in the premortal world or elsewhere.

I am glad to see the people from all races, tongues, and backgrounds are accepting the gospel and supporting one another. I believe that is the true meaning of the restitution of all things. Whether the reason for any restriction of the priesthood to blacks was the will of God or the mistaken racist lack of understanding of Church leadership, I know not nor care, I only rejoice that the LORD's will is that the message of the Gospel and the blessings thereof are extended to all the world and the LORD has made it clear.

-a-train

[Guest mamacat]

<div class='quotemain'>

Through Adam's transgression, death came upon all mankind. What is worse? No priesthood or death? Is anything we take in this life a punishment? Who did sin in the man born blind from his birth, the man or his parents? Remember Jesus' answer to that question? Even if there is a 'priesthood ban', should we infer that it is a punishment? Are we to assume that the crack baby is being punished? Were those children born to Jews in Germany during the holocaust being punished?

NOTHING in this life is a punishment. We live in a probationary state here, a time for us to prepare to meet God, a time wherein we are tested to see if we will do all things whatsoever the LORD our God commands us. How many people died before the Restoration? Was that a punishment? Are the Chinese under the rule of communism who have still not been able to receive the Gospel and the priesthood being punished? We are NOT being punished, we are being tested.

-a-train

A-train...We are definitely being tested not punished. But we must remember that the majority of hardships we face, the VAST majority, are a direct result of us hurting or even just not loving each other. Imagine a world we we were all reasonable followers of Christ. A world where if I told you that my brother had died, you would react the same as if you got a call that YOUR brother had died (if you have a brother). A world where we couldn't imagine why one would need locks on doors because there is no crime and where welfare was handled on a local level and never abused. In this make believe world there would still be sickness and injury but those things, when they happened would be eased by monumental outpourings of love. And there would be no third world or starvation or war.

My point is that God our father is not putting most of the things that people would THINK are punishments in our path. We are like children who fight and hurt ourselves. And the true obstacle that we face are in our own hearts and minds, the thing that keeps us from being better children, servants and saints is ourselves.

hi David ~ this is a beautiful and sublime vision you have.

it is sweet contemplating such things. :)

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

You just gave me my new favorite website! Thanks! Loving It!

-a-train

Hi a-train,

Okay, this is going to sound like I'm just a jealous fool, but here goes. I gave a link to the same website on page one of this thread.

I promise, I really am NOT jealous. What concerns me is that any information I contribute will be perceived as not relevant, or even anti-Mormon, because I am not a believing LDS member.

I make this statement in a general manner, because I have absolutely no idea if you even noticed my link to that website in the first place, (which is magnificant in my opinion). I suspect my being so new here had something to do with it as well.

I just hope all of you will believe me when I say that I am not an anti-Mormon, that my passion is Mormon history, and that I can be trusted when I present information. You probably will not always agree with me, and that's fine. Actually, it's great. I love hearing differing perspectives. That's why I bring the information to the thread to begin with. Just know that it's always to learn, never to harm.

Okay, I think the green is fading away.

Thanks

Emma