Jump to content

MormonMason

Contributor
  • Content Count

    2,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

825 Excellent

5 Followers

About MormonMason

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

2,061 profile views
  1. Actually, I really, really do. I assure you that I'm quite well read on the subject. I've researched the topic well into the early 19th Century and have consulted many primary, documentary sources on the matter. Secondary and tertiary sources are less useful. But I'm also being driven into addressing multiple, specific individuals, all angry over what I have stated, including remarks increasingly leaning toward personal attacks. Some overlap may occur under such circumstances. But if you want me to go, how shall I address those who are about to go on the attack? Well, I can see the writing on the wall. I'm sure the ban-hammer is coming soon, anyway.
  2. I'm not defending anything "as if it were still going strong and more important than anything in the world." Your (false, reactive) interpretation of my actions. What I am doing is showing why it is that it isn't entirely manmade. It is becoming commonplace to do that sort of thing nowadays when the full array of the evidence considered together implies otherwise. Throw away a council where it is explained that skin color has nothing to do with it. Throw away the council of John Taylor where, after President Taylor said he would have to pray about it because the eyewitness testimony was inconsistent, the ban continues. Throw away the actions of David O. McKay to remove the ban, and his actions after prayer, namely the continuation of the ban he badly wanted to end. Claim it all is nothing more than a cosmic accident and that they all were doing it on account of the color of skins when it really wasn't the case? Where is the logic in doing all of that? Because it makes our "social justice warrior" insides feel good? I think not. Until I see proof-positive evidence it all was a cosmic accident based on full-on racism, I'll stick to what I know. Until then I'll defend why I hold such a position as I do. That is all I am defending.
  3. None of those quotes say that skin color was the reason for the ban. Period.
  4. Why should I? I know of what I speak. And it likely will never happen again. It is irrelevant. And I missed nothing. None of your quotes say that skin color was the reason for the priesthood ban. Got any that actually do? Let's see them in context. Were they wrong or right? It is irrelevant. Priesthood ban is over. Done deal. Everyone's opinions prior to that time don't really matter all that much in the eternal scheme of things. Prophets are entitled to their opinions and personal quirks, wrong or right.
  5. After 1852, maybe it became a justification for some people. But the ban still was not based on the color of the skin. Did you not read what I quoted from the 1847 Council of the Church minutes? The Church did not care about the color of one's skin. The color of McCary's skin was not the reason why he did not hold the priesthood and they did not care about skin color. President Young told him that and all at the Council agreed. That seems not to be enough?
  6. I've done the research. Much of it ends up going into the discard. Most of this material is based almost entirely on the thinnest of assumptions that groupthink turned into consensus in spite of the huge lack of evidences therefore. May I suggest that you consult R. K. Harrison's Introduction to the Old Testament? It is a thick read (over 1,300 pages) but well worth the labor. Everything after page 693 are summaries of the various books of the Old Testament and various issues with each. Everything before that discusses archaeology and the weaknesses of the Documentary Hypothesis that was created in the 19th Century and rehashed with little change since then. But it also is your opinion that particular scriptures you don't like aren't God-breathed. I don't accept such opinions. Humans don't really get to make such judgments without some good, hard evidence to back such opinions. For instance, I know that there are issues with some texts of the Bible. Some have been rewritten. Others are translation issues. I don't have to accept such texts as have those kinds of issues as "God-breathed" but I have seen hard evidence for those. Not so much for the claims about how the Bible came to be.
  7. Someone I know did that years ago, to no avail. It did not matter what primary source was cited. Opinions were fixed and unbending. It was like what happens from time to time on Wikipedia. That was pretty discouraging for me to hear so I've never bothered.
  8. Because it wasn't done. Skin color was not the reason for the ban.
  9. You're doing the same thing cinepro did. The quotes speak of the physical characteristics, not as the reason why they were banned from the priesthood with few exceptions. If it were based on skin color, why were some Blacks ordained anyway while the ban was in force? Even your latter quote separates the black skin from the priesthood ban. Nice try but no cupie doll.
  10. I never stated that it was fully lifted. Exceptions were made, too. We see the same thing happen in the Bible. If you were descended from Moab and Ammon, no membership in the congregation of God for you "even to the tenth generation...forever" (Deut. 23:4-5; Neh. 13:1-3). But Ruth was let in and accepted in spite of the Lord's complete ban on those two nations. And so were David and Solomon, both of whom had Ruth as their grandmother. In the case of Elijah Abel, he was told by Joseph Smith and via patriarchal blessing that he would "be made equal to thy brethren...entitled to the priesthood". At least his son and a grandson also were ordained years later, while the ban was in force. Elijah Abel was listed as a member of the "3rd Quorum of the Seventy" after being in Utah. Yes, it was partially lifted for a few. If it had been based on the color of skin or on race alone, there would have been no exceptions.
  11. Indeed. The tree of knowledge and good and evil was convenient to where they were standing at the moment their eyes were opened. It would be a simple matter to grab some leaves and make some aprons from that tree.
  12. Brigham Young himself stated that it was not about the skin color. He also stated in a Church Council that he and the Church of the time did not care about the color. All those present agreed with that statement and it was recorded. There is nothing embarrassing in looking at all sides of the equation, as I have done. I have no problem with owning that it happened. But I also know that it had nothing to do with the color of peoples' skins. But some people want to lay it all aside and claim it was a cosmic accident that was made right after the fact, when it follows established patterns in scripture for other situations, such as when God banned two light-skinned nations from becoming members of the congregation of God (because of something done by their ancestors), or when Jesus set things up so that a Canaanite had to admit in so many words she was a dog before he would even help her, or when the Holy Ghost forbade the apostles from preaching the Gospel in Asia Minor for a period of time. There is long history of God doing stuff like this. This cannot be denied and one claim that only one example of such a pattern of God's dealings with men in modern times was nothing more than a cosmic accident. By the way, I've looked into claims that the LDS idea of some Africans being of the line of Cain, as a means to justify slavery, came from anything prior to 1852. From all I have seen, that is an untruth, a twisting of sources, and it seems FAIR/FairMormon continues spreading it. None of the primary sources I have consulted from the 1800s have anything like that in them, until 1852 (after the priesthood ban). Unless you have a primary source or two prior to 1852 that does mention it? I've seen nothing of the kind in any of the primary sources I've consulted on the matter, to date.
  13. Nope. Lineage is lineage and race is race. Some people tend to overlap them and sometimes there can be overlap under the right circumstances. But this is not the case with the priesthood ban. If it were strictly based on race, then why were some Blacks ordained even during the ban? No one seems to want to discuss that. It happened. And I know for a fact that some Blacks were ordained while during the ban, two of whom were the son and grandson of Elijah Abel. As to Joseph and Asenath, we are not told what her lineage is, only that she was Egyptian. But at the time of Joseph was around the time of the Hyksos. Hyksos were foreign rulers of Semitic descent. Some priests in Egypt were called Egyptians even though strictly they were not descended from Ham. The claim that the Israelites came out of the Canaanites is based on tenuous assumptions at best. And some people identified as Canaanites weren't. We have Bible mistranslations to blame for that. Still doesn't change the fact that it was not based on skin color, as was stated in the 1847 Church Council. And it wasn't. If it were, again, why did some Blacks continue to be ordained, with those ordaining them knowing their race? That all came out of Africa also is based on limited information that could change at any time. I mean, if we go back far enough, sure, hominids may have come from there but the lineage question did not come up until there were established lineages to bring up. It began with a specific human ancestor in a specific period in the timeline and thereafter. It was not based on initial biological origin of the entire species.
  14. For some early traditions (by at least c. AD 150), particularly those of the Syriac Christian communities, it was the fig (and the little worms that often hide therein).
  15. There were those who attempted to do that but the Church tried to help people avoid by communications with Bishops. But again, some few people who had black skin were ordained to the priesthood even during the ban. I've seen the membership records so I know better than to believe that skin color was the primary basis for determining whether someone could be ordained. Melanesians received the priesthood in spite of their skin color and their African appearance, and that was before the ban was lifted. There was a restriction for a time for their ordination but that was cleared up in short order. If skin color and appearance really were the primary basis for whether or not they could be ordained, they never would have been ordained before the ban was lifted. And that skin color test also doesn't explain ordinations of descendants of Africans that still occurred during the time of the ban.
×
×
  • Create New...