Authors of nearly every news story that discusses Africa, Church growth, or African American Mormons, seem to feel the need to bring up 1978 in depth. Maybe this is acceptable. It is, after all, a part of our history. What I object to is the tone of many of these articles, but oh well.
My question is this: when did the other American churches begin to allow blacks to fully participate in their leadership? How many were actually segregated, while LDS wards were not?
This isn't a question of equal treatment. It has been and always will be about turf. We are sheep stealing. In order to counter that, the other denominations have to paint us in as bad a light as they can. What makes it worse is that we are spreading stuff around the other guys can't counter, that is, don't believe us, ask God. How can they counter that? In the end it is the worldliness of the traditional Christian churches versus the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The best way to counter us is to confuse the issue. Get the investigators to doubt us so they never try.
If you weren't there SHUT UP! YOUR OPINIONS DON'T COUNT! I WAS THERE! LOOK AT ME I'M OLDER THAN YOU! AGE AGE AGE AGE!!! http://www.don-linds...uments.html#age
Wow - I'm sorry my statement set you off so much. I'm really not that old but I was there enough to know of the pressure and how much it had let off by 1978 - I don't remember telling anyone to shutup - just making a historical statement from personal experience. That is not the "AGE" fallacy - I simply said I was there. History always gives more credence to primary sources, rather than speculation. You mis state the fallacy.
As far as the Mark E. Peterson quotes, we've been over that. Tell me, could I not find similar racial quotes from pastors and leaders from ever major religion in America? As I stated earlier, how do you respond to Elder Sitati's quote?
This isn't a question of equal treatment. It has been and always will be about turf. We are sheep stealing. In order to counter that, the other denominations have to paint us in as bad a light as they can. What makes it worse is that we are spreading stuff around the other guys can't counter, that is, don't believe us, ask God. How can they counter that? In the end it is the worldliness of the traditional Christian churches versus the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The best way to counter us is to confuse the issue. Get the investigators to doubt us so they never try.
Best bleeping answer I've heard yet. Very good points - hadn't thought of it that way.
The statements by LDS individuals must be read in their proper historical and social context to be understood. Wrenched from context, they can function rather like wrench in a game of Clue. But that involves deliberate misuse of a tool. The tool was design for repair, rather then mayhem.
And of course, a very helpful context for considering the statements of various LDS people, authorities and laymembers alike, over the years should be this bit of esoterica in D&C 1,
24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these acommandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;
26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;
27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;
28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.
I've found that a very good way to discern the inspiration of church leaders involves keeping a realistic view of what they are, along with a realistic view of what I am. It happens that I wrote a detailed study of Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets for FAIR not long ago. In that light, I think the LDS leadership stands out very clearly and distinctly from all modern competitors.
Whether it was "doctrine" or not seems to be a matter of debate. David O. McKay actually stated that it wasn't a doctrine, but was a practice in place. I'd suggest some reading here: Link 1, Link 2
David O. McKay was only speaking as a man. His statement that it wasn't doctrine does not meet the usual standards of doctrine as routinely defined on this board. Just ask BC.
"Substance-free poster" - as labeled by Dr. Scratch
Contributor
7,612 posts
Posted 19 April 2009 - 05:08 PM
John Larsen, on Apr 19 2009, 04:39 PM, said:
David O. McKay was only speaking as a man. His statement that it wasn't doctrine does not meet the usual standards of doctrine as routinely defined on this board. Just ask BC.
I am forced, again, to say - it is still a matter of debate. You, and others, keep proving me right.
Given the timing of the evolution of civil rights and the civil rights movement, that the 1978 revelation was a response to public pressure makes common sense.
Given that there was no "public pressure" worth mentioning at the time, the claim that it was a response to non-existing "public pressure" makes no sense at all.
Unless "common sense" is some sort of shorthand for "what anyone can come up with simply by leaning back in their chair, and with no actual facts to back them up."
MichaelW, on Apr 19 2009, 07:59 AM, said:
Otherwise, it'd be a pretty extraordinary coincidence.
A "pretty extraordinary coincidence" that the Church made a change when there was no noticeable "external pressure?" Umm, okay.
MichaelW, on Apr 19 2009, 07:59 AM, said:
I suspect the only "proof" many Mormons would accept is an apostle unequivocally stating "we finally gave Blacks the Priesthood because we had no choice politically," and even then I'm sure some would find a way to discredit such a statement.
You mean like all the ways "some" find to discredit President Woodruff's remarks about the Manifesto?
Regards,
Pahoran
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
This is breathtakingly backward thinking, even for the period.
Maybe so. But is there a reason why you don't cite the source.....
Apostle Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems - As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954
....?
I think it's so as to not discredit your own claim that such teachings may have been doctrinal.
Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.
Read the quote. It's clear. Read it. Now. Put you eyes over the words and move them back and forth.
Thank you yes, I did that already. I do not find what you claim to find, although I can see that it is possible to read one of your pre-existing assumptions into it.
Nyal, on Apr 19 2009, 11:29 AM, said:
1. (That blacks were not the equals of whites) The full potential of blacks is not the full potential of whites, they committed a "sin" before being able to sin and were CURSED with a dark skin. This is PAINFULLY clear. Blacks NOT the equals of whites.
It is "PAINFULLY clear" to me that you are reading this in the most jaundiced way possible. Elder Peterson specifically said that he wanted blacks to have equality in every material sense.
Nyal, on Apr 19 2009, 11:29 AM, said:
2. (That their skin colour "bordered on sin) He says it: "We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"...." Being black is almost a sin. It is certainly the result of sin.
Yes, he though it the result of premortal sin. But did he say that the colour itself "bordered on sin" or was "almost a sin?" No. You made that up.
You just can't help "improving" your sources, can you? I guess you must be one of those "lazy critics" you elsewhere derided.
Nyal, on Apr 19 2009, 11:29 AM, said:
3. (That could only strive to serve the "higher races) Again he says it: "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory." So, little sambo, if you are REALLY good and REALLY faithful, then you get serve whitey in whitey heaven.
Ah, race-baiting. With inflammatory racial epithets, and all. How original, or something.
Are all anti-Mormons demagogues in training?
Nyal, on Apr 19 2009, 11:29 AM, said:
I did not default. A good man pointed out I was being snarky after pointing out this is essentially a difference of opinion. I stopped.
Only after you repeatedly claimed, without support, that a "reasonable person" could maintain the view that the timing was "suspicious."
Well you wouldn't know this, but reasonable people don't persist in maintaining suspicions that they know have no reasonable basis. So, do you have any reasonable basis for your accusation that the timing was "questionable?" This is a CFR, Nyal. You need to support your assertion or retract it.
Nyal, on Apr 19 2009, 11:29 AM, said:
If you weren't there SHUT UP! YOUR OPINIONS DON'T COUNT! I WAS THERE! LOOK AT ME I'M OLDER THAN YOU! AGE AGE AGE AGE!!! http://www.don-linds...uments.html#age
Irrelevant and incompetent. Here is what your source actually says:
Quote
Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients):
snobbery that very old (or very young) arguments are superior. This is a variation of the Genetic Fallacy, but has the psychological appeal of seniority and tradition (or innovation).
IOW, it's the age of the argument that is being appealed to as granting it superiority. We frequently hear it in politics: "My granddad voted Labour, and my dad voted Labour, so it's good enough for me." But nobody has tried to make such an argument. All anyone has said is, "I was an adult member of the Church at the time, so I can report what I observed. And you cannot."
You need to calm down, Nyal. Nobody has tried to tell you to shut up. Rather, your idiotic and intemperate outbursts look suspiciously like an attempt to silence anyone who is in a position to comment based upon their own experience.
Which is rather bad form, really.
Regards,
Pahoran
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.
Authors of nearly every news story that discusses Africa, Church growth, or African American Mormons, seem to feel the need to bring up 1978 in depth. Maybe this is acceptable. It is, after all, a part of our history. What I object to is the tone of many of these articles, but oh well.
My question is this: when did the other American churches begin to allow blacks to fully participate in their leadership? How many were actually segregated, while LDS wards were not? In fact, baptist congregations are still among the most segregated in the country (see: http://www.associate...g2.html?cat=47), althought voluntarily, and many religions continue to lack significant black leadership. Why is 1978 always brought up with us, but policy changes are rarely if ever brought up with other churches. Is it because it was a definitive date at which this changed, while other churches kind of fazed it in?
My point is that virtually ALL religions and churches have changed their approach to minorities, particularly blacks in the US. (As a point of fact, Jesus Christ changed his church's policy toward whites.) But the LDS continue to be hounded about their "overnight" change in policy.
As a side note, I personally believe the ban on the priesthood was a cultural, and not doctrinal policy, but that is my opinion. However, I loved Elder Sitati's quote in the trash tribune today:
It does not bother him that the church barred blacks from the priesthood until 1978.
"Christ came only to the Jews and not until the end of his mission did he commission the apostles to go to all the world," he said. "Different communities are invited to participate in the plan of salvation at different times. What is important is that the salvation to which they are invited is the same. It doesn't matter that the Jews were the first, if you like, and the Africans are the last."
Oh . . . and
Most of the current anti-Mormon attacks are imported from America, Sitati said. "Some people who are trying to protect their own faith spread bad stories about Mormonism. There is no indigenous hostility to the church." http://www.sltrib.co...rce=most_viewed
There is a very important distinction here that often gets overlooked. The history of the Church regarding the priesthood and those of African descent is often used to paint the earlier LDS Church as a white only organization, but this does not stand up to closer scrutiny...
Elijah Abel was one of the first black men ordained to the priesthood and that happened way back in the days of Joseph and Brigham...
His descendants also received the priesthood.
In the 1950's, under the direction of David O. McKay, Melanesians, who have skin as dark as our African brothers and sisters, were given the priesthood because they were etermined to be of a different lineage than Africans. The first Fijians received the priesthood 3 years later in 1958. And people with dark skin in the Phillipines where given it even earlier. So it never had anything to do with skin color (see Armand Mauss, Neither White nor Black, Signature Books, pg. 152)... For some reason at that time, those of African lineage could not receive the priesthood. Since we don't have a revelation from the Lord on the reason for it, but we know the Church has been and is adamantly opposed to racism, we can assume it was not for that reason. It doesn't really pay to speculate. We simply don't know.
If you look at the early history of our Church regarding, race compared to other contemporary American churches, we actually had a very radical, forward thinking view of African Americans for that day. Joseph Smith for instance made statements about the equality of African Americans and their being subjects of salvation that would have been considered insanity in most of the established southern Churches.
It has always been the doctrine of the Church that every worthy person, regardless of race, who honors God and keeps his covenants, will enter into the Celestial Kingdom . This too would have rubbed a good portion of the established Churches in America the wrong way in the 1800's but we taught it just the same.
Here is a talk by Alexander B. Morrison that is one of the finest talks I've seen written by a General Authority on the topic of the blilght of racism: http://www.lds.org/l...e..._&hideNav=1
Edited by mpschmitt, 19 April 2009 - 06:21 PM.
Don't try to tear down other people's religion about their ears, Build up your own perfect structure of truth, and invite your listeners to enter in and enjoy its glories.
~Brigham Young
Follow me on twitter: mpschmitt
Take a listen to three songs off my new 6 Song EP "Life" - OUT NOW! www.myspace.com/markpeterschmitt
Or just buy it! ;-) at www.markpeterschmitt.com
Well, actually, neither can I. It sure appears that the LDS church is no more led by God than any other religion out there. . . . It appears that the LDS church is a man-made religion with no evidence that it has any more contact with God than any other reigion.
Yes, it certainly appears so. Leaders of most other churches claim revelations, visions of angels, and the like, in precisely the manner that Latter-day Saint leaders do.
From Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 176-177:
Quote
As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments. . . .
Those in attendance said that as [President Kimball] began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball's prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord's. During that prayer some of the Twelve -- at least two who have said so publicly -- were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. . . .
At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the church members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God -- an ineffable experience.
Two of the apostles present described the experience as a "day of Pentecost" similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest single event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.
No evidence of any unusual revelation in that account.
And here is what Elder David B. Haight had to say as he reminisced about the revelation on priesthood during the April 1996 general conference. Clearly, like those apostles who wept when they spoke to Leonard Arrington about the revelation, he viewed it as nothing more than a routine business decision, purely human, suggesting no sort of divine guidance:
Quote
I would hope someday that our great-grandson Mark and others of our posterity would have similar spiritual experiences and that they would feel the spiritual power and influence of this gospel. I hope that Mark and others will have opportunities such as I had when I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience.
But just a few hours after the announcement was made to the press, I was assigned to attend a stake conference in Detroit, Michigan. When my plane landed in Chicago, I noticed an edition of the Chicago Tribune on the newsstand. The headline in the paper said, "Mormons Give Blacks Priesthood." And the subheading said, "President Kimball Claims to Have Received a Revelation." I bought a copy of the newspaper. I stared at one word in that subheading: claims. It stood out to me just like it was in red neon. As I walked along the hallway to make my plane connection, I thought, Here I am now in Chicago walking through this busy airport, yet I was a witness to this revelation. I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. Little did the editor of that newspaper realize the truth of that revelation when he wrote, "Claims to Have Received a Revelation." Little did he know, or the printer, or the man who put the ink on the press, or the one who delivered the newspaper -- little did any of them know that it was truly a revelation from God. Little did they know what I knew because I was a witness to it.
Nope. Again, no hint whatever of any exceptional "divine" guidance.
With the issue of the 1978 revelation, critics have picked an unusually brilliant illustration of their notion that the Church doesn't really claim divine direction.
I can't spell it out any better. It is clear. I can say it's clear. I can emphasize and reword for you. If anyone else than the fine Elder can show me my error interpreting this text, please educate me. I am finished kicking against the prick. We will have to stay in disagreement.
I can't spell it out any better. It is clear. I can say it's clear. I can emphasize and reword for you. If anyone else than the fine Elder can show me my error interpreting this text, please educate me. I am finished kicking against the prick. We will have to stay in disagreement.
You are right about the age thing quoted, though.
On this board, it's literally impossible to accurately quote Peterson on race, or accurately quote church leaders on a host of issues. If the quote is negative for whatever reason, you've left out a word, or left out context, or are relying on hearsay, or failing to rely on reliable hearsay, or it was a transcription error, or something or anything else or whatever else.
To the rest of the world, you obviously described what Peterson said and believed about Black men and women.
On this board, it's literally impossible to accurately quote Peterson on race, or accurately quote church leaders on a host of issues. If the quote is negative for whatever reason, you've left out a word, or left out context, or are relying on hearsay, or failing to rely on reliable hearsay, or it was a transcription error, or something or anything else or whatever else.
To the rest of the world, you obviously described what Peterson said and believed about Black men and women.
On this board, it's literally impossible to accurately quote Peterson on race, or accurately quote church leaders on a host of issues. If the quote is negative for whatever reason, you've left out a word, or left out context, or are relying on hearsay, or failing to rely on reliable hearsay, or it was a transcription error, or something or anything else or whatever else.
To the rest of the world, you obviously described what Peterson said and believed about Black men and women.
Thank goodness. I was beginning to question my sanity.
Point 1. Of course.
Point 2. Total cop out, since there is no possible way to separate revelation from opinion (and yes I read the church's statement, it solves nothing).
I just love it when non-Mormons critique past LDS priesthood policy. It is generally a sign that they are either ignorant of, cavalier towards or hypocritical in regards to non-LDS denominational history. For example Richard Furman was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Charleston, South Carolina, back in 1838. He summed up the Baptist philosophy of the south in that day and age. "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Contrast that with Joseph Smithâ??s abolition stance. Furman's stance is tame when you contrast it with one of the key figures in the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Two men, Alexander Stephens -- the vice-president-elect -- and Baptist minister Basil Manly, Sr. accompanied Jefferson Davis in the inauguration parade of the first president of the Confederate States of America. Basil Manly was known as the Chaplain to the Confederacy. He was a Baptist Minister, Educator and plantation owner along the Black Warrior River. He was a vocal and strident advocate of slavery. This led to many personal and professional conflicts with northerners which polarized the Baptist governing body then known as the Baptist General Convention. This polarization lead directly to the schism of the Baptist General Convention and in the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1844-45. Manly chaired a committee of the Baptist State Convention of Alabama which prepared what is known as the Alabama Resolutions. These resolutions made a demand on the Acting Board of the Baptist General Convention to formally recognize that slaveholders were to be appointed on an equal basis with non-slaveholders. Until the Acting Board complied with the demand, the congregations in the south would withhold of their monetary contributions. When the Acting Board refused, the south withdrew from the general body and organized the Southern Baptist Convention.
Basil Manly, owned more than 40 slaves. In his 1836 â??Lecture on Antsâ? a sermon justifying slavery said: â??It surely ought to comfort the abolitionists to know that although the ants do hold slaves, the masters are humane and gentle, and the slaves are contented, industrious, and happy.â? I wonder if one particular slave named Sam would agree with Manlyâ??s assessment. In his diary, Manly recorded that a slave named Sam â??behaved very insolently to Thos G. Grace, and refused to measure or receive a load of coal which Grace had brought. By order of the Faculty, he was chastised, in my room, in their presence. Not seemingly humbled, I whipped him a second time, very severely." (Mark Gibney, Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, Jean-Marc Coicaud , â??Age of Apologyâ?, Philidelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, [2008], pg. 110)
When the southern states began to secede from the Union, Basil Manly was at the forefront in tendering his support. â??The Alabama Baptist Convention, meeting at the end of 1860 in Tuskegee, unanimously adopted a resolution offered by Basil Manly Sr. proclaiming that Alabama Baptists felt bound to declare themselves â??subject to the call of proper authority in defense of the sovereignty and independence of the state of Alabama, and of her sacred right as a sovereignty to withdraw from this union.â?? In this declaration they were â??heartily, deliberately, unanimously, and solemnly united.â?? One observer believed that this declaration, â?¦ â??did more to precipitate the secession of Alabama from the Union than any other one cause.â??â? (Daniel W. Stowell, â??Rebuilding Zionâ?, New York: Oxford University Press, [1998], pg. 34) In fairness, it should be noted that southern Civil War era Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. followed a similar path.
Manly played a crucial role in the development of Baptist theological education. He was an influential key player in the founding of several institutions of higher education including Furman University and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Manly was also the second president of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Through these institutions, his ideology, theology and agenda thrived long after he passed on. Manlyâ??s theological defense of slavery is the foundation on which the Baptist schism, the secession of the southern states and the post civil war southern segregation policies are, in part, built.
So which path would the United States have been better off following, the abolitionist policies of Joseph Smith, American Prophet or the architect of Southern Baptist Convention, Basil Manly, the Chaplain to the Confederacy? Which path lead to the fracturing of American society? Which path caused hundreds of thousands of deaths by war, famine and disease? Which path lead to integrated congregations and which path lead to segregationist ideologies? It was only after 150 years that the Southern Baptists finally repented of their ties to slavery in a formal resolution adopted in 1995! See http://www.sbc.net/r...tion.asp?ID=899
So when you anti-Mormons crank up your diatribes, I just smile.
Where offence is not intended, none should be taken
American by Birth, Christian by Choice, Latter-day Saint by the Grace of ChristTM
0
This topic is locked
blooit, on Apr 17 2009, 10:27 AM, said:
