What is so True?

[Misshalfway]

I have noticed I keep getting different responses from what is so "true" about the LDS. In my mind the church is not perfect in doctrine. For example, minorities would not have been included in temple rites before 1978. There have been several other major changes since then. Also I read that even church leadership is not correct all the time. We would always refer to the standard works. If leaders teachings are based on the standard works but at the same time always refer to the standard works that to me indicates church leaders are not true either. If the doctrine is not true because of being revised for needing improvement, and the leaders are not true because they are not correct all the time. For example Brigham Young, then what is so true about the church?

It seems to me that you are equating "true" with "perfect." Any church on earth and administered by the human WILL be flawed. Their are essentials that are true. The truth doesn't lay in the behaviors of the individuals. The truth lies in the doctrine...in the existence of God the Father and his perfect son Jesus Christ and His gospel. God chooses trustworthy individuals to administer.....not perfect ones.

I think that perhaps you are expecting that a true church, or in our definition, a church led by Jesus Christ, would never change. And if it did, or its policies did, then it would automatically nullify itself. Well, if that were the case, then the entire Christian world would be in trouble. Because nothing describes the history of Christianity more than change itself.

The greater question is do God's policies with the children of men change? He doesn't change....his nature, etc. But do his commands? His expectations? Let's look at the Israelites. He would have given them the higher law....but no. He gave them a lower law because it was expedient for them.

Then, let's look at the coming of Christ. He came and "changed" or fulfilled the law. He changed tradition and practice and dogma of the time. And was convicted and put to death because he did. Does that make Jesus or God the Father wrong? NO! What about Abraham being asked to kill Isaac? Against the law? YOU BET? Sinful? Absolutely not! Obedience. That is what was asked of Abraham. What of the rest of us? What is required is obedience......even when the Lord asks us to do things that go against logic, or culture, or the popular/traditional ideas of the time.

If you look to the scriptures for perfection.....you will be disappointed as well. They are documents and translations, and they have proven to inspired multiple interpretations. They are tools to help us find truth. They are layered and have the power to influence to soul. They hold the words of God. But they do not trump God. God speaks thru them. God gives them to man.....and trusts man in his imperfection, to use them properly. Sometime man messes up. That doesn't nullify the scriptures or God or the power of the word.

Ok. Now. I want to address the subject of blacks and the priesthood. It is often inferred that because the priesthood was not given to every man until 1978, that the church hates and oppresses black people or any person of color. I think that it is this inference that I object to most. We don't deny the writings of the scriptures where God has punished his children. But we do reject the notion that the 1978 decision was made because of political pressure and that is was given to somehow undo a great wrong committed against black people. Why should the church apologize if what they did and when they did it was the will of God? I don't see the hatred you all claim we have. In fact, I see many actions by the church leaders that show the opposite of what is being charged here. That is not to say that I close my eyes to the failings of some members of my church and their ignorance and prejudice. The question isn't really about blacks and the priesthood. It is about the very nature of revelation and the communication of God to his chosen servants.

God has at many times given decree that wasn't popular or that didn't include every single child on the planet. I don't know why He does what He does. I can't presume to know the mind of God beyond what He has revealed. But I do know that when the Lord commands, I must obey. Just because his will is not our will does not make the church a place of hatred and degradation. Sometimes, as a parent, I say "no" to my children. Sometimes I say "wait". God is no different. I don't always understand what God does. He moves in mysterious ways. But, I don't automatically assume the worst because God reveals something that doesn't exactly make sense to His children.

There is no doubt in my mind that humans need to treat one another better. We have found every way under the sun to hate and oppress and destroy one another. We need to evolve. Many of our institutions and groups are better than ever before. Now is a wonderful time where people of all colors can learn to come together in obedience to the Lord and in friendship and equity with each other.

If a person is looking into ANY religion, they will find discrepancy and human weakness. That is why one needs to get their information from God himself thru the Spirit of the Lord. And when one is in the posture of doing that, they can ask God why the priesthood was not given to all men from the beginning of time!

[kona0197]

Nice justifications Vanhin and Misshalfway. Why can't you guys just accept that the Church was wrong?

After all I've already proved that the Church taught that the curse of Cain was a skin of blackness.

Need I dig deeper?

[Snow]

Why should the church apologize if what they did and when they did it was the will of God?

Do you have any evidence that it was the will of God?

[Vanhin]

Nice justifications Vanhin and Misshalfway. Why can't you guys just accept that the Church was wrong?

My post wasn't to justify anything. All I've done was point out that we do not know why the ban was in place, though many have tried to explain it by tying it to this or that.

After all I've already proved that the Church taught that the curse of Cain was a skin of blackness.

Need I dig deeper?

I think you are going to have to dig deeper, because what you have written so far, has not proved that. The only thing you have shown, is that certain leaders tried to come up with an explanation for the ban. One of the popular explanations is the mark of Cain. But the truth is we don't know for sure why those of Hamitic descent were banned from the priesthood to begin with.

I would like to point out also, that it is a fact that not all people with dark, or black skin were banned under the policy. The ban affected those of the lineage of Ham, or African descent. What critics conveniently fail to realize, is that black-skinned men of non-Hamitic lineages, like the Dravidians of India, the Aborigines of Australia, the Melansians of Fiji and Melanesia, and the Negritoes of the Philipines and Indonesia, all had a right to the Priesthood, and held it if they were worthy of it. Also, white Hamites could not hold the priesthood until the ban was lifted.

The ban remained in place because the Church truly believe that the lineage of ham did not have the right to the priesthood, and it remained in place until the Lord lifted the ban.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

These guys, for instance, could have held the priesthood during the ban, if they were worthy of it.

Vanhin

Ps. Those guys are ripped!

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thanks for that information Vanhin, something I wasn't previously aware of and which may be of some relevance in relation to a quotation by President John Taylor in another thread where racism in the church was referred to. If the priesthood was withheld from one lineage specifically regardless of colour then that does put a different light on things.

[Aphrodite]

My husband is starting to have problems with the church too, and one of his biggies is this issue. He finds it difficult to accept how a loving God can distinguish his children into coloured categories of what they can and can not do. That sounds like the American government in the sixties, not God.....And are we not told that man will not be punished for Adam's transgression? So why are/were black people punished for CAIN'S transgression?

Frankly this issue bugs me and does not sit right. I have many black friends and I often wonder how they can be members knowing they were shunned before the 70s.

The whole issue makes me feel sick.

[Vanhin]

My husband is starting to have problems with the church too, and one of his biggies is this issue. He finds it difficult to accept how a loving God can distinguish his children into coloured categories of what they can and can not do. That sounds like the American government in the sixties, not God.....And are we not told that man will not be punished for Adam's transgression? So why are/were black people punished for CAIN'S transgression?

Frankly this issue bugs me and does not sit right. I have many black friends and I often wonder how they can be members knowing they were shunned before the 70s.

The whole issue makes me feel sick.

Black people were not punished for Cain's sin. Anyone that perpetuates such non-sense is not helping the issue. We do not know why the priesthood was widtheld from those of Hamitic descent.

You probably have not read the whole thread yet. Take a look at these posts:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10735-what-so-true-5.html#post188940

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10735-what-so-true-5.html#post188961

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10735-what-so-true-6.html#post189135

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/10735-what-so-true-6.html#post189144

Regards,

Vanhin

[kona0197]

I would post more quotes from Church leaders saying that the curse of Cain was a skin of blackness but the site it would come from is questionable so I will not.

I got banned last time I tried that.

Suffice it to say that even Brigham Young taught this doctrine.

I still hold out that it was done for racist reasons.

[prisonchaplain]

Black people were not punished for Cain's sin. Anyone that perpetuates such non-sense is not helping the issue. We do not know why the priesthood was widtheld from those of Hamitic descent.

Who is of Hamitic descent? Which race or ethnicity?

[Vanhin]

I would post more quotes from Church leaders saying that the curse of Cain was a skin of blackness but the site it would come from is questionable so I will not.

I got banned last time I tried that.

Suffice it to say that even Brigham Young taught this doctrine.

I still hold out that it was done for racist reasons.

I'm not claiming that Brigham Young did not say that. You are missing the point.

It never has been the doctrine of the Church that the ban had to do with the curse of Cain. The reason for why the descendants of Ham (not Cain) were prohibited from the priesthood is unknown. The whole thing about Cain was just what some members and leaders speculated about it. Some of them even truly believed it, I'm sure, and some of them were probably at least a little racist. But the Church had no official reason for the ban which seems to have started as early as the days of Noah. Clearly it wasn't a racist policy, since all other people of color could hold the priesthood. And that is a fact.

Do me a favor and go back and read what I and others have posted so that we don't have to re-type the same things all over again.

If the truth of this issue really matters to you, then you need to be honest about the facts. Don't just stick to your guns because you want the Church to be wrong, or you believe in your heart of hearts that the Church is evil. That's what it seems like to me. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a benevolent organization. The Church and it's members (generally speaking) have been a force for good in this world since it's restoration, and will continue to be so.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[kona0197]

Benevolent? Yeah right. Yet they can't even help us with a power bill...

I just want someone to admit that I was right. The Church did teach that the curse of Cain was a curse of black skin.

If I could get permission to post the links I would.

[Misshalfway]

Benevolent? Yeah right. Yet they can't even help us with a power bill...

I just want someone to admit that I was right. The Church did teach that the curse of Cain was a curse of black skin.

If I could get permission to post the links I would.

You are right to a point. Yes Cain was cursed. Yes, that fact is taught and discussed. But to say that because of this the church is racist or was racist just isn't truly understanding what the church is all about. Has there been ignorance among the members? Yes. Has the entire globe needed to learn acceptance and tolerance? Yes.

I think Kona that you are stating facts.....but missing the context.

[Palerider]

seems to me a few people need to go and visit.....blacklds.org of course from what I have been reading here it may not make a difference

[Misshalfway]

seems to me a few people need to go and visit.....blacklds.org of course from what I have been reading here it may not make a difference

I went to this site! It is wonderful. Thank you! So informative!

[kona0197]

I went over and looked at blacklds. Interesting site. I still can't help wondering if someone was lied to though...

[Misshalfway]

You prolly won't be convinced by us or by that website. You need to take the question to the Lord. His answers have such power to cut thru all confusion and opinion. You can know the truth about this issue just as certainly as anything else.

I think it is wise to question. This church welcomes questions. This whole church started because a boy asked a question! Go Kona, and ask in faith.

[kona0197]

To be blunt I really have no need to pray about it. I'll stick to what History has said.

After all you wouldn't pray to find out that WW2 took place would you? History is all I need at this point.

[Misshalfway]

To be blunt I really have no need to pray about it. I'll stick to what History has said.

After all you wouldn't pray to find out that WW2 took place would you? History is all I need at this point.

OHHH History! I thought we were talking about truth! Ha ha.

Kona, you bet I would pray, especially if I were searching to know spiritual truth. If the events of WW2 had some influence or concern in my quest, you better believe I would take my questions to the Lord. I pray to Him about everything else.....even how to decorate my house or even to thank him for making my kids so dang cute!

Just pray, Kona. Don't lean on the arm of the flesh when it is truth from God that you need.

[kona0197]

No thanks. I admit I only pray rarely but that is beside the point. I would rather stick to what history has said when talking about the Church and the curse of Cain.

[Misshalfway]

Well. That is your choice. A very safe choice.

[kona0197]

Actually I don't pray very often at all. Perhaps twice a month or less. I don't see any need for prayer as I never get the response I want if I get a response at all so I treat prayer as a one sided connection. I gave up to a point some time ago.

Same with my scripture reading. I try to read when I can yet it has no impact on my life. I still have the same issues.

[Misshalfway]

Well, I must say I can understand that. Understanding answers to prayer can be frustrating thing. It has been for me at times. I have had to learn how to obtain the answers and how to recognize them. I have also had stretches of time when I was sure the Heavens were closed to me. So, I completely understand. But, I have enough in my long term efforts with prayer.....even in my tremendous imperfection....to understand that God does answer....but not until after the trial of my faith. I have had to learn to trust His wisdom as my Father.

I can understand the scripture reading.....but a little less so. My scriptures are torn apart! I have had some wonderful spiritual and intellectual experiences with them. All I can do is to invite you to try again. The BofM says "feast on the words of God". I love mine. They have been a best friend to me. I haven't been reading as I should lately.....and boy do I feel the void in my life. Maybe we could both start up again. :) Hope you will forgive me the invitation.

[Hemidakota]

OK Hemi go look into this. It's from a wiki about the curse of Cain.

Well, your first mistake is using the Wiki god as your source. Kona, there are websites that have Journal of Discourses that you can plainly view it youself. Though, I will say this, propehts are human. They will make mistakes. Even I have over some issues that the Lord or ministering spirits had corrected me. As you indicated, I have the Journals, history, and even most of JS published diaries. You will noticed that it is not from Joseph Smith that talked about this issue since he baptized a few fellow brethren into the church. I do know that President Young was a former preacher and some of his culture up bringing needed corrections.

President Brigham Young, at another time said: "The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a 'servant of servants' to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it."-J. D. 2:184. This is another interesting remarked he stated.

Kona, do you the name of Ham is also rather significant, for it means "swarthy" or "black." It is possible that this is an appellation given to the third son of Noah because of the part he played in preserving through his lineage-and that most likely, as we have tried to show, through his wife Egyptus-the race of blacks upon whom the curse was placed. Piecing together the evidence as we discover it in holy writ and in tradition, we are brought to the conclusion that Ham, through Egyptus, continued the curse which was placed upon the seed of Cain. Because of that curse this dark race was separated and isolated from all the rest of Adam's posterity before the flood, and since that time the same condition has continued, and they have been "despised among all people."

This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say:

"President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring."

Joseph Smith has left very little on record in his own words outside of the Pearl of Great Price. During the course of a discussion in Nauvoo in 1842, on the question as to whether the negroes or the Indians have received the greater ill-treatment from the whites, the Prophet Joseph said: "The Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain." (D. H. C. 4:501.) But we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro may be baptized and enter the Church; and some of these unfortunate people have been baptized and have proved their faithfulness and worthiness before the Lord, in this their second estate, setting examples in righteousness which many of the sons of Shem and Japheth could emulate with everlasting profit. Surely the Lord will remember their faithfulness and reward them accordingly.

However, thankyou for your validate points.

[Guest Seraphim]

Benevolent? Yeah right. Yet they can't even help us with a power bill...

I just want someone to admit that I was right. The Church did teach that the curse of Cain was a curse of black skin.

If I could get permission to post the links I would.

You may not post information from anti-Mormon sources. The references you post should contain full context without ellipses.

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything 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.

Seraphim