Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by birdgirl

  1. 15 hours ago, Calm said:

    Amen on that...unfortunately for many with chronic disorders, they are unusually sensitive to side effects so even drugs considered very low risk can cause issues...or they have to jump through endless hoops trying drugs that damage them before being allowed to use the ones they know work with least side effects.  Then there is having the energy to shop and cook good food (and don't forget food sensitivity) and exercise and having doctors who know what exercises work best for their conditions.  Sometimes even relaxation practices are out of the question (that's where "restless" comes into play, mind says time to relax, body says no and creates weird sensations to ensure it wins).  Calming music isn't very calming when one can somehow sense ants dancing all over one's skin.

    OM Gosh yes! My poor daughter has Juvenile Arthritis but I swear she also has Ehlers Danlos syndrome (just like her cousin). She has done Physical Therapy 3 times and all the drugs with 0 relief and they just say to keep taking more/longer. Standard of care is a progression of likely drugs. Gabapentin increasing to mega doses, muscle relaxants and then stronger ones, every antidepressant ever made, Lyrica, every anti inflammatory ever made, Methotrexate which is TERRIBLE but you have to take it first to get insurance to let you move on to Humira, Enbrel, Orencia... If it makes her sick they say take it with food or more food or at night or with protein or just keep taking it anyway until I say no more and they roll their eyes at old helicopter mom. I finally got a doctor just TODAY to agree maybe it is EDS but she doesn’t diagnose or treat it. We are experimenting with different diets but only acupuncture and myofascial massage make it bearable so far -the 2 things not covered by our insurance! And everyone suggests yoga but it is the absolute worst for her! Sorry for the off topic rant just wanted to say I hear you- chronic disorders are maddening.

  2. One of my sisters couldn’t renew her recommend because her husband was sure the best cure for being on the brink of financial ruin due to his complete incompetence was to have another baby (she had epic nausea and fatigue with each pregnancy).  She said no and he tattled to the bishop who berated her for not obeying his priesthood authority but she wouldn’t submit so she sat outside the temple for my wedding. She was devastated and can’t handle confrontation and had no reason to believe the Stake President (the Bishop’s decades long friend and neighbor) would help her so why risk going to him?

    Wouldn’t it be great if there was a way to safely contest a bishop’s decision that wasn’t just Stake President roulette? Maybe involving an actual woman or a group of women (and men)?

    I think some men truly listen to women in spite of everything they internalize because they are genuinely empathetic men and would do so if they never were Mormon. Giving credit to church or priesthood is mistaken attribution of causation.


    Mothers’ Employment Outside the Home

    I agree with JAHS that the quotes are quite old but this manual was published in 2003.  Is it still the most current version in use?  

    “Mothers’ Employment Outside the Home,” Eternal Marriage Student Manual (2003), 237–40
    “Numerous divorces can be traced directly to the day when the wife left the home and went out into the world into employment. Two incomes raise the standard of living beyond its norm. Two spouses working prevent the complete and proper home life, break into the family prayers, create an independence which is not cooperative, causes distortion, limits the family and frustrates the children already born. …

    “… I beg of you, you who could and should be bearing and rearing a family: Wives, come home from the typewriter, the laundry, the nursing, come home from the factory, the café.

    “No career approaches in importance that of wife, homemaker, mother—cooking meals, washing dishes, making beds for one’s precious husband and children.


    Lesson 28 in the Basic Manual For Women dated 2000 allows for some exceptions.  Women with children are encouraged to work from home.

    “Lesson 28: Developing Employment Skills,” The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A (2000), 206–13

    Sometimes Women Must Be Employed

    In many families a father or husband works to provide for the family’s needs. However, this is not always the case. Women must also be prepared to provide support. Many women work to support themselves, and still others work to support themselves and their families.

    • What are some reasons a woman must work? Write the responses on the chalkboard and discuss them. Be sure to include the following ideas:

    Her husband or father is dead.

    Her husband or father is disabled through illness or accident.

    She is single and must support herself.

    The family’s basic needs are not being met with one income.

    Unexpected illness or other hardship creates a need for extra income.


    Earning Money at Home
    • Display visuals 28-b, “A woman earning money at home by cutting hair”; and 28-d, “Homemade baked goods may be sold.”
    Many women have found ways to use their talents and interests to earn money at home. This is especially helpful when a mother with small children must work. Here are some ways that women have earned money at home:

    1. Sewing children’s clothing, draperies, wedding gowns, uniforms, household items, stuffed animals, dolls, or doll clothing
    2. Embroidering, knitting, quilting, crocheting, doing crewel work, making or arranging flowers, making jewelry, doing silversmith work, or making leis
    3. Decorating cakes; making tortillas, wedding cakes, bread, cookies, candy, or pies; or packing school lunches
    4. Caring for children in the home or teaching a nursery school at home
    5. Gardening and selling produce. Fresh home-grown produce is always in demand and sells well. Some women who live in farming communities make jams and jellies from local fruit. They sell them at roadside stands or in stores.
    6. Teaching music, dance, or art
    7. Providing day care for the elderly
    8. Tutoring students
    9. Writing for the newspaper
    10. Typing or bookkeeping
    11. Selling by telephone
    12. Acting as a rental agent for apartment owners
    13. Boarding someone in their home
    14. Providing foster care for handicapped children
    15. Grooming or caring for animals
    16. Styling or cutting hair

  4. 1 hour ago, Calm said:

    Except for the part she doesn't know if God talks to us.  Never heard that in a testimony before...

    I wouldn't be surprised if those giving testimonies felt that way at times, but generally I would expect them to assume .God talks to us even if they haven't had that experience yet, but they hope to have that experience soon.  That God talks to us is rather foundational to .LDS doctrine and belief.

    I think if she was heterosexual (as far as anyone knew) and a 12 year old said she didn't know if God spoke to her but she felt loved and accepted by Him church leaders would tell her that was how her Heavenly Father communicated via the Holy Ghost.  

    She failed to use the "I know" template but, either way, a testimony can be accepted or disqualified by what follows no matter how passionate the "knowledge."  

  5. I had a YW leader offer us a beautiful chocolate cake and then she jammed her hand in the middle and offered us a fistful of mashed cake/frosting and said we would have to eat it out of her hand.  It was much less appetizing.  

    My husband's seminary teacher brought in a fragile figurine and talked about how beautiful and valuable $ it was and then broke it and said that he could glue it together but it would never be flawless and valuable like before.  The worst part was he broke it on the desk of a girl who had already been "broken" or whatever euphemism you like and she ran out crying.  



  6. This is telling...not sure exactly what it's telling, but it does seem shocking since these 6 were temple married.

    Yeah, my mom was pretty sure that it was telling that she sucked. No greater success can compensate and all that- not that she did ANYTHING else besides fail in the home evidently. Not her fault but she can't believe it.

  7. I am just a little uncomfortable with the primary song Follow The Prophet. There are nine verses (my ward made up one more on Hinckley) and between each verse the children would chant/sing/yell:

    Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Don't go astray!

    Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! He knows the way!!

    Nine times (ten in my ward). 54 (or 60) "follow the prophet"s

    In my ward the kids would pound one little fist into their open palm on every "follow."

    Maybe some wards skip some verses.

    No big deal but it seems a little culty ( cultesque?) to have kids as young as three repeat that so many times. One year when they were preparing for the primary program they sang it every week for at least two months (I was a primary teacher) which began to bother me. After that it was just once every month or two.

  8. I was taught the chewed gum, licked cupcake (eww!) and broken precious ceramic figurine lessons (you can glue it- repent- but it will never be the same because you can see the cracks) in seminary and young womens. My teachers quoted The Miracle of Forgiveness:

    "Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

    I guess it isn't doctrine but it still goes around- maybe more in the super old-school Utah towns.

    I never had a school teacher discuss virginity or rape in class.

  9. Have you listened to the podcasts with Brian Hales yet? It's pretty convincing, Brian reiterates the reason for polygamy is for exaltation and creating spirit children for the worlds created by future Gods. He is explicit in this. There isn't any wiggle room for another scenerio. It does look better IMO if JS is establishing polygamy for this. Do you believe that you will be like our HF? You have to know that in the LDS church we believe we'll become Gods (meat). Why do you think BY and JS married all those women? Definitely not for fun or to fulfill sexual desires, but I do leave the door open to the thought that maybe JS started out with an affair with Fanny and then turned it into the whole....create worlds and need many wifes to procreate spirits.... theory. It may all be make believe or it may all be true, still trying to figure that all out.

    Sorry, I haven't listened to this one yet. Are you saying that Brian Hales uses this specific argument- the creation of spirit children? I've heard it before but I didn't know if it was well supported by teachings from early prophets. This would suggest that we have many heavenly mothers or rather one heavenly mother each and many heavenly step-mothers as well as half brothers and sisters here on earth. I think church leaders would prefer for that one to stay in the "folklore" bin.

  10. It's exciting to have lots of missionaries and missions, but a little sad, too. When I was in the Hamburg Mission in the mid 1990s, there were six in Germany and a German-speaking mission in Switzerland and Austria. Now, the entire German-speaking world is covered by two: Berlin, and "Alpine" (covering Bavaria, Austria, and Switzerland). I can't even imagine the logistics of covering that many units with ca. 100-150 missionaries ----- many areas will have very little missionary presence.

    A while ago Italy went from four missions to two and the French speaking missions combined from four to two last year. That is a lot of ground to cover. The mission presidents must have to travel constantly to go to all the zone conferences and I think they also have between 100-150 missionaries.

  11. Since my wife feels even more strongly about women not having priesthood leadership roles than I do, I asked her to give me specifics as we drove to the temple on Saturday (a triple sealing ----- a sister was sealed to her visiting parents and to her husband, and their son was sealed to them. What a treat!). She’s the one who applied the phrase “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth light” with respect to how the Church would look and be run with women vs. men in priesthood leadership roles. Here are her thoughts:

    1. As difficult as confession to anyone, male or female, is, period, it would be much more difficult for women to confess to another woman in the ward as part of the repentance process.

    [rongo --- I am amazed at the courage and guts it takes to repent through the priesthood. This emphatic statement from my wife shocked me. She said that women have a complex psychological competitiveness with other women (and undergo constant insecure comparison between themselves and other women), which would add another layer of difficulty on a completely different level].

    2. Women’s tendency to engage in and carry out countless “petty squabbles” (her words) would create problems (not with a woman bishop herself, necessarily, but with other women and their “petty squabbles”). The usual amount of armchair quarterbacking/ark-steadying/second guessing that ward members engage in about their bishop/stake president would be much worse under a woman ----- from the other women.

    [rongo ---- my observation as a bishop and from my mission is that women tend to carry hurts, real and imagined, much longer than men, and that hurts have a much deeper effect on women than on men. “Hell hath no fury greater” than a woman hurt or offended by someone, and bishops and other priesthood leaders are constantly criticized, disagreed with, etc. and have to sometimes step in and have very difficult conversations with people when there are problems. I think that hurt feelings and offense in both directions under a woman bishop would be problematic].

    3. Obviously, time away from home would be a major problem with a woman bishop, unless it were limited to “empty nesters” only. While it’s less than ideal for dad to be gone so much, too, it is not even close to the same thing.

    [rongo ---- I would add that there are specific promises to men in Journal of Discourses that their children’s spiritual and emotional development would not suffer due to long absences ----- years, in many cases. A special endowment of the Holy Ghost would enable mother to be “both father and mother.” The special role of mothers as nurturers (cf. the Proclamation) do not allow the reverse to be true. It is much, much harder on children when mother is gone a lot than when dad is. Of course, it is catastrophic when dad is completely absent or distant, too ---- that goes without saying, but the Lord blesses families who are required to share dad with Church service if they keep their end of the bargain. For specific reasons having to do with our “eternal identity and purpose,” I don’t think the gender roles can simply be reversed in Church service].

    4. Women are much less likely to make snap, “game time decisions” that deviate from established routine (this is what mfbukowski essentially agreed with).

    [rongo ---- My wife brought up something I had forgotten: we were able to get Dan Peterson to come to our stake (outside of Utah) and do a stake/community fireside last year. He and his wife attended church services at our ward the next day, and I asked him after sacrament meeting to address a combined priesthood/Relief Society during the third hour. Most members were fascinated and enthralled, but there were some grumblings from women that we should have stuck to the lesson schedule. One sister, a very active, strong mother of four young children, actually was in tears and had to pray about whether or not she “could sustain this” ---- I kid you not (I wasn’t aware of this at the time, but one of my counselors saw her very distraught and calmed her down). Most of the women were delighted by Dan’s “open mike” Q&A covering Book of Mormon items, Islam, experiences, etc., so I’m *not* saying that all women would react this way. I do think, though, (and my wife agrees), that women are much less inclined to consider doing something “outside the routine or structure” when opportunities arise or when there is potential.]

    Anyway, these are our thoughts, for what they’re worth. In summary: if women were priesthood leaders, I think the Church would be much more efficiently-run, but not nearly as exciting or as much fun. Without hopefully offending anyone, I think God got it right with how things have always been (as far as we have any scriptural or traditional indication), and how things are is "the best of all possible worlds."

    Women don’t have the priesthood because the prophets of the LDS God have said they can’t. Some women in the early days of the LDS (and primitive Christian) church had some form of the priesthood. Now they don’t. I think the PR department’s response would be somewhere along the lines of “we don’t know the reasons for this.” African Americans could have the priesthood and then they couldn’t. Well-meaning leaders (even prophets and apostles) and members of the church erroneously tried to construct reasons for it derived from their own speculation and current cultural theories (and scriptures). We have recently learned from the PR department that they were wrong to do so.

    The reasons your wife presents, or variations of them, have been used to deny women education, the right to own land, the right to have their own bank account/credit, voting rights, the right to work outside the home, and the power to make their own reproductive decisions. If your wife were to relate her reasons to a Washington Post reporter, I suspect that the PR department of the one true church might very well repudiate her claims and go so far as to say that they condemn sexism both outside and within the church (or something like that).

    Your wife and other women may have a “complex psychological competitiveness” with those of their own gender (unlike men) that render them unfit for positions of leadership in the LDS church (and possibly other organizations) but I assure you I know women who can lead, take confession from and confess to other women, council others in emotionally charged male/female conflicts etc. without insecurity or immature reactions.

    Some women can even make “snap, ‘game time decisions’ that deviate from established routine.” If women are really “much less likely” to do this perhaps it is because they have not been raised to value or develop this ability rather than an irreparable estrogen-induced failing. I’ve had some great bishops and some truly horrible ones (Ponzi scheme, creepy, and old-school misogynist). I think the ability to lead depends more on personality, upbringing and education than maleness. Neither my totally awesome husband nor I aspire to be the POTUS but this is due to temperament and interests rather than our differing reproductive systems. Just because some women don’t want to be bishop doesn’t mean that other women shouldn’t or couldn’t be great bishops or that we females who do not desire the position shouldn’t support those who do. Being a leader in the church would not detract in any way from a woman’s ability to nurture or diminish a man’s ability to lead or his value to the organization or family.

    I think many women are taught by example to be competitive, passive-aggressive and to engage in “petty squabbles”. If girls were taught from the age of 3 in primary that someday they might be the bishop or stake president - and saw women in those roles on a regular basis - I think they would view themselves differently and be more likely to develop leadership qualities. With regard to the overly-broad generalizations as to gender-based willingness to do things outside normal routine, efficiency, excitement and fun mentioned above, I think they have little to do with the possession or lack of a womb and more to do with personality. And to the extent these characteristics appear to follow gender, I think the ways in which religious and political cultures socialize people depending on gender bears significant responsibility. Men and women are different in some ways, no doubt, but the question is how much is truly inherent and how much is learned behavior based on what is modeled to them.

    In regard to time spent outside the home, I think this would actually help create a balance that is lacking for many Mormon families. Fathers who are bishops often work a full work week or more and then see to their church duties for hours on evenings and weekends. If women were bishops, they could still see to their family’s needs for many, many hours each week and then the husband could spend much needed time with his children while she conducted interviews etc. If men can carve out time to be bishops, they could easily carve out the exact same amount of time to nurture their children while someone else does the job. Is this service less valuable to the Lord? Does the value depend on the gender of the provider? Does it diminish the man because his wife got to give birth AND sometimes lead while he can only lead? Really? Furthermore, stay at home moms would be more available to take calls during the day and perform some clerical duties while children are napping or at school thus reducing their time away from home even more than would working men.

    The LDS church provides a lot of structure and guidance when it comes to clothing, earrings, tattoos, underwear, what to/not to eat and drink, when to/not to have intimate relations and with whom, when to: pray, have children, go to church, have FHE, go on a mission, etc. I think this creates a tendency to fill in the void when a policy (doctrine?) isn’t explained in great detail. We are seeing the folly of this very propensity in leaders and members alike in regard to extending/denying/extending the priesthood to those formerly referred to as “Negros.” The prudent approach to the subject of women and the priesthood is that this is the current doctrine (policy?) and you will receive further light and knowledge on the subject after death and/or in the undetermined future.

    I predict that because I’m a woman some will see my response as “catty” or will use what, to my parents and in-laws, is the F word--FEMINIST (gasp!) usually preceded by the word “angry”. It pains me that I can’t discuss this with my father on equal terms since he views my disagreement as egregious disrespect from a subordinate. He can dispassionately debate the exact same subject with my husband and then slap him on the back and say, “Well, you’re wrong, but you’re a good guy!” and then move on to football or politics.

  12. Xander comments......

    From Moderator:

    You have removed the time stamps from your quotes. I have gone back over a week and cannot find your quotes. You are going back through countless old posts to find anything you can to make appear as if you are being mistreated! Wade has not insulted you since being told to stop. Everyone has been on their best behavior and stayed on topic for over a week except you. This is such a blatant attempt to pick a fight and derail I am letting it stand.

    Hi, in this post (#110) the quotes are taken from Wade's post #103 on the same thread and page.

    You are correct and I am in error. The moral of the story is do not remove time stamps. The next gratuitous insult will close the thread no matter who is at fault. This is too much work for moderators.

  13. If someone uses the term 'indoctrination' to mean 'brainwashing'-as many like to do-then that would be incorrect, but i don't believe that's how birdgirl meant it at all.

    If I understand why me correctly, the implication isn't so much that I view the term indoctrination in a negative way (which I do) but that my mother viewed teaching me LDS doctrine as a task- one performed without proper sincerity and, if so, she deserves the blame she assigns to herself. My parents wouldn't have called it indoctrination and I always knew they were very sincere and heartfelt about what they taught me.

  14. Great comment. I agree 100%. It gives me hope that despite my many, many shortcomings, Christ will make all things whole in the next life. I know many woman in the Church that beat themselves up every day because they are not perfect. They need to hear Russell M. Nelson's counsel.

    Some women in the church are fine with not being perfect. After all, Joseph Smith wasn't perfect. What I've come to understand is that women "beat themselves up" or are concerned because they don't enjoy doing righteous things as much as they think they should. Julie B. Beck talks about how being a female equals nurturing and nurturing equals/includes cleaning house (Mothers Who Know talk).

    Mothers who know are nurturers. This is their special assignment and role under the plan of happiness.5To nurture means to cultivate, care for, and make grow. Therefore, mothers who know create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth in their homes. Another word for nurturing ishomemaking. Homemaking includes cooking, washing clothes and dishes, and keeping an orderly home. Home is where women have the most power and influence; therefore, Latter-day Saint women should be the best homemakers in the world. Working beside children in homemaking tasks creates opportunities to teach and model qualities children should emulate. Nurturing mothers are knowledgeable, but all the education women attain will avail them nothing if they do not have the skill to make a home that creates a climate for spiritual growth. Growth happens best in a “house of order,” and women should pattern their homes after the Lord’s house (see D&C 109). Nurturing requires organization, patience, love, and work. Helping growth occur through nurturing is truly a powerful and influential role bestowed on women.

    I believe that cooking, cleaning and washing clothes are just tasks that must be done but hold no eternal value connected to my reproductive organs. I could hire out all these tasks and be a much better/happier mother. I could nurture and teach my kids to be excellent people without scrubbing a single toilet. If you feel the way I do but are taught to believe you should feel otherwise then the difference could be something to "beat yourself up" about.

    My sister (with 2 kids) really wants to work outside the home (she is super extroverted and can't volunteer for enough stuff to compensate for the SAHM funk so she feels guilty for hating being at home and wanting a career). She doesn't worry over slight imperfections but rather the huge discrepancy between what she should do and what she wants to do. The problem is that she would be much happier getting a nanny even if it cost every penny of her salary- the improvement in her mental health would be well worth it but she feels that would be unrighteous. She took comfort in the words of some LDS leaders who said we shouldn't judge women who work and some "I'm a Mormon" adds but then this lesson in the new "Basic Manual for Women" reduced my sister to tears because she doesn't want to groom dogs or babysit or any of the other options on the list or any other job "in the home".


    If a woman believes that living a certain way is to obey eternal female principles and should make her feel fulfilled or at least bring a sense of satisfaction and then she doesn't feel at all satisfied she worries that she is defective or doing it wrong. I think it is similar to the despair a "same sex attracted" person might feel- that their truest self is antithetical to the eternal standard. That would be depressing.

    Despite reassurance from Elder Nelson and other leaders that everything will work out in the eternities, my mother considers herself a "failure in the Home" due to the apostasy of most of her many children. She cooked and cleaned, sewed and scrubbed, indoctrinated and nurtured the living daylights out of us. I think reducing her pain to "beating herself up" over not being "perfect" is an oversimplification but that is probably how she would articulate it herself in front of other women.

  15. Before you ask why a person said something, you need first to establish that he did say it. I am unaware of any contemporary source for that alleged statement.

    Elijah Abel (or Able) was not only ordained by Joseph Smith, but so were his male descendants, even though their lineage was known. I don't know what your point is Birdgirl, but there's more to the pre-1978 story than a simple, blanket restriction.

    I've read a number of things about the origins of the ban, and the evidence that Joseph Smith originated it is far from univocal.



    Good point. John L. Lund only gives Abraham O. Smoot as the source of the quote but perhaps he did shoddy research and didn't bother to either confirm this statement with other sources or identify in his text that its origin was questionable. He just wrote "It is obvious that when Joseph Smith said, "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood," that is exactly what he meant."

  16. It seemed obvious to me.

    Judge for yourself...


    Looks like a white guy with black hair to me but the photo is kind of grainy. More importantly, Lund and other church leaders from Abel's day up until 1978 maintained that "...the Priesthood has been mistakenly given to some Negroes who are light of color." (The Church and the Negro p. 78)

    So if Joseph knew that Elijah Abel was one-eighth "Negro" and gave him the priesthood anyway, why did he say, "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood"? Didn't President Smoot know Elijah Abel before 1879? Abel was ordained an Elder in 1836 and as a Seventy 1841 so he wasn't unknown to the leadership. What I've read that was written pre-1987 says that Elijah Abel was clearly a case of mistaken pedigree that was rectified upon discovery. I'm fine with the alternate explanation that Smith was more progressive but why didn't Smoot or Young or anyone else seem to believe that Smith would have approved of his own actions?

  17. I think it is worth mentioning that people in the LDS church are not the only ones that still consider black skin to be the mark of Cain.

    The reason people won't let it die is because it is obvious there is some kind of discrimination that had gone on in the church for a very long time and a revelation from God seems a little too convenient for many outsiders. As time has gone on, understanding and awareness of discrimination has increased. The revelation lifting the ban conveniently coincided with this increase in awareness.

    I think the most important issue with this "ban" is that Joseph Smith Jr. gave the priesthood to Elijah Abel, then the church steered in a direction that was contrary to Joseph Smith's. Considering the nature of how the church split, this is a clear indication that Brigham Young may have been the wrong one the Saints should have followed. If Joseph Smith was actually a prophet of God, then Brigham Young was a pretender for making up revelation that Joseph Smith knew was wrong.

    I do believe Joseph Smith Jr. had a more open-minded attitude towards black people and slavery for the time. I don't recall why I think that, but Elijah Abel's obtaining the Priesthood is clear evidence that the 1st and 2nd President of the Church had a difference of opinion. If they were both receiving revelation, then it is a difficult discrepancy to explain.

    Right up until 1978 Lund and many others seem to say that Joseph Smith accidentally gave Elijah Abel the Priesthood because he was unaware that Abel had "Negro" blood. Is there clear evidence that Smith knew Elijah Abel was of mixed race when he gave him the priesthood? President Smoot clearly felt that Joseph never would have given Abel the priesthood had he known.

  18. I thought the "ban" was there from the very beginning but some people misunderstood or didn't know that some men had African American ancestors.

    From The Church and the Negro by John L. Lund:

    It is obvious that when Joseph Smith said , "No Person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood," that is exactly what he meant. This was the situation in Elijah Abel's case. A quote from Berrett's supplement to Mormonism and the Negro reveals that Elijah was "one-eighth Negro and light of color." Nevertheless, he did have Negro blood and was therefore not eligible for the Priesthood. Berrett also explains in referring to the entry cited in Jensen's LDS Biographical Encyclopedia,

    The entry is misleading because it does not disclose that Elijah Ablel was only part Negro and does not disclose the fact that in a meeting, May 31, 1879, at the home of President A. O. Smoot, Provo, Utah, leaders of the Church reapproved that the Priesthood was not for the Negro, and that Elijah Ablel was not to exercise any priesthood rights.

    Why is there a debate about "when it began" as if it were a later change or institution of the rule? Did Smoot and Lund and many (virtually all) others misquote/misunderstand Smith in "reapproving" the ban? Lund makes it sound like this rule was in clearly in place from the begining.

  19. My next question for young LDS, or even older LDS, is what kind of Mormon do you identify as? Are you orthodox? TBM? Liberal? LGBT? Moderate? Unorthodox?

    Some Mormons, like John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks (testimony on MST), call themselves Uncorrelated Mormons. While the church has recently been described as a "big tent" I personally don't think it is big enough for what they envision.

    I'm one that the LDS church and Christianity "lost" (to quote the OP) and I'm fascinated by those who sit on the fence or the fringe and try to cause a shift from within- seems hopeless and pointless to me but maybe they are gaining traction as well as supporters.

  • Create New...