Blacks And The Priesthood

[Johnny Rotten]

Flavo said,

The Lord is the same today, yesterday, and forever. His pattern for revealing truth to the world has not changed. The prophets have revealed the will of the Lord and it is insignificant if I or anyone else believes it or not, it has been revealed. If one will follow God's way to finding truth, then they can know also. When a prophet speaks as a prophet then it is the Lord's will.

Please share with me the revelation or scriptures, or any authoritative statement that lays out the origin of the â??Lords desireâ? on the issue of Blacks and the Priesthood, prior to 1978.

I have been unable to locate any origin revelation about this subject. I have found lots of statements in its defense, yet I cannot find the origin of the Doctrineâ?¦Policyâ?¦folklore.

Best,

JR

[thesometimesaint]

Johnny Rotten:

I believe the policy was of God, but none of the speculative rationalizations for it.

I've searched in vain for the Revelation. But it is probably lost to the past. All we individually can do now is to be thankful the policy has changed, and ask God to confirm it.

[Johnny Rotten]

Sometimesaint said,

I believe the policy was of God, but none of the speculative rationalizations for it.

I've searched in vain for the Revelation. But it is probably lost to the past. All we individually can do now is to be thankful the policy has changed, and ask God to confirm it.

I respect your opinion, however I must disagree.

If what you say is true then why did Joseph Smith and other early apostles ordain African American men, Elijah Abel, Black Pete and Walker Lewis to the priesthood and then why wasnâ??t their priesthood revoked when greater knowledge was given to Brigham Young and other Leaders? I am not convinced that the teaching was ever from God.

As I have said before IMO it is more reasonable that the personal bias and prejudice of some of the early saints and converts were carried over when they joined the Church and it became a policy. Yesâ?¦a policy supported by a improper reading of scriptures in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price and the common folklore of the day.

Sometimesaint said,

But it is probably lost to the past.

I cannot accept the..."dog ate my homework" excuseâ?¦

Best regards,

JR

[thesometimesaint]

Johnny Rotten:

I am glad that God is willing to work with us mere biased, and prejudiced mortals.

It very well COULD be that He was waiting for the members of the Church to ketch up with what He thinks.

What's lost is lost. MAYBE it is sitting in someone attic trunk. But, other than God, who really knows?

[flavo]

QUOTE

Flavo said,

The Lord is the same today, yesterday, and forever. His pattern for revealing truth to the world has not changed. The prophets have revealed the will of the Lord and it is insignificant if I or anyone else believes it or not, it has been revealed. If one will follow God's way to finding truth, then they can know also. When a prophet speaks as a prophet then it is the Lord's will.

Please share with me the revelation or scriptures, or any authoritative statement that lays out the origin of the â??Lords desireâ? on the issue of Blacks and the Priesthood, prior to 1978.

I have been unable to locate any origin revelation about this subject. I have found lots of statements in its defense, yet I cannot find the origin of the Doctrineâ?¦Policyâ?¦folklore.

Best,

JR

Doctrine and Covenants 84 lays the ground work for the Priesthood (Melchizedek) passing only from father to son. So at that time no other male but those within the bloodline recieved the priesthood. Also the Aaronic priesthood remained within that particular seed. All other worthy males were denied. If we read in Doctrine and Covenants section 27 we see that the priesthood was bestowed upon Joseph Smith and specifically in verse 10 Joseph and Abraham are refered to as Joseph's 'fathers' within whom the promise still abided. In Doctrine and Covenants 110 we see additional keys of the priesthood being confered. The bible dictionary says "The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the president of the high or Melchizedek priesthood, and by virtue of this position, he holds all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on the earth. This office or calling is held by only one man at a time, and he is the only person on the earth at that time in whom all the powers and keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood are functional." So though the priesthood through Joseph Smith came to all worthy caucasian males, they were still restricted in there use. As we can see by biblical accounts the Lord never specifically denies a race the priesthood, he only gives instruction as to its lineage. I think the world is making the arguement as to skin color, when in documentation it was cultures that were not allowed the priesthood. There is no scripture, as I have yet to find, where anyone other than a certain chosen bloodline was to carry the priesthood until the time of Christ. We di find that there were those that found false hope in that their lineage to Abraham granted them exaltaion. (Matt. 3:9) It was not only with the priesthood but with marriages also. They were to marry only within certain cultural bounds. Yet, when we say these things today and fall prey to the thinking of the world we see it as being racist or discriminatory.

We must understand the covenant made to Abraham and that there are steps and events that must take place before the fulfillment of these promises. The gospel must be restored, the priesthood must be conferred again upon man, the keys of the sealing power must be given again to mortals, Israel must be gathered, and the Holy Ghost must be poured out upon the gentiles. These have happened and are happening now. Why was the priesthood denied to blacks? I don't know. Why was the priesthood denied other races? I don't know but the Lord knows and it is within his will and time that these things have proceeded regardless of my wanting to know why or how or what prior reason. His ways are not ours. His reasons for withholding the priesthood are his. Christ withheld the gospel from the gentiles while he was here. He only taught one race, the house of Israel. So if you are looking for a smoking gun, I suggest you go to the Lord. He withheld it from other races of people and it has been restored in his time and place.

[BlueDreams]

Ed

My LDS friend think that it was not a faulty revelation - including the change in 1978.

If you were a black person how would you feel?

Wouldn't care too much...though there's not much proof that the intiation was brought about by revelation. I do partially believe that, if it wasn't necessary, it was allowed due to the state of the people as I mentioned earlier.

By the way I'm mixed. My dad is Nigerian. So I have half an idea (pun intended) what it would feel like. I'm more repelled by the curse of Cain, ODR (which ain't just an LDS thing by far), and the pre-existance idea (well not repelled and more incredulous...it just sounds stupid to me).

With luv,

BD

[Johnny Rotten]

Flavo said,

So if you are looking for a smoking gun, I suggest you go to the Lord. He withheld it from other races of people and it has been restored in his time and place.

Thatâ??s the real question isn't it, if the Lord intended to withhold the Priesthood why did Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders give the priesthood to Elijah Abel, who was made a seventy by the Prophet Joseph, Black Pete and Walker Lewis. Please explain how one who communed with angels, ancient Prophets, the Lord and the Father could have gotten this wrong?

You quoted a lot of scriptures that don't make your case. For instance are you suggesting that the only people in this dispensation that could receive the Aaronic priesthood are direct descendants of Aaron? I know one my father who is not a descendant of Aaron according to his patriarchal blessing and he received the priesthood of Aaron before 1978.

I think most would agree that you are misusing those scriptures.

Furthermore when Christ told the Apostles to take the gospel to the gentiles I don't remember the caveat "except those black Africans". Did I miss something?

Please answer my questions.

Thanks,

JR

Flavo,

Off subject...but Iâ??m a huge Star Wars fan.

JR

[Moksha]

I am fairly certain President Hinckley's words and wisdom had a retroactive quality to them. In his address he related to us some of the history of the lifting of the Priesthood Ban. His reasoning was applicable to both the present and well as the past. Don't forget this came right on the heels of a former BYU professor calling for the Church to offer a clarification for past reasons given for the Priesthood ban. His reply in my mind was an answer to that call and has given us an answer as to its true origins. "I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"

The true of President Hinckley's remarks echo to both the past and present.

The words of Abraham Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation were also short and to the point. Yet they have been frequently repeated throughout the years because of their importance to the American Nation. These words by President Hinckley are also brief, but the message they give is a pivotal one in answering the whys and wherefores of LDS beliefs regarding race or the euphemistic "lineage" ban for male Priesthood holders. The ban was born on the wings of arrogance and we can leave it at that.

[Hammer]

Flavo said,

So if you are looking for a smoking gun, I suggest you go to the Lord. He withheld it from other races of people and it has been restored in his time and place.

Thatâ??s the real question isn't it, if the Lord intended to withhold the Priesthood why did Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders give the priesthood to Elijah Abel, who was made a seventy by the Prophet Joseph, Black Pete and Walker Lewis. Please explain how one who communed with angels, ancient Prophets, the Lord and the Father could have gotten this wrong?

You quoted a lot of scriptures that don't make your case. For instance are you suggesting that the only people in this dispensation that could receive the Aaronic priesthood are direct descendants of Aaron? I know one my father who is not a descendant of Aaron according to his patriarchal blessing and he received the priesthood of Aaron before 1978.

I think most would agree that you are misusing those scriptures.

Furthermore when Christ told the Apostles to take the gospel to the gentiles I don't remember the caveat "except those black Africans". Did I miss something?

Please answer my questions.

Thanks,

JR

Flavo,

Off subject...but Iâ??m a huge Star Wars fan.

JR

You bring up Abel again. We are taught that the God of Moses taught and even commanded that they not kill yet at times He commanded them to kill.

That is biblical. Why is it so hard for you to understand that Abel could have the priesthood as the exception, not the rule and the rule was not fully understood at the time. Line upon line, precept upon precept. There must be learning and growing allowed.

[Brackite]

Hammer quoted and wrote:

You have made reference to me as a bigot in no less than and possibly more than 3 posts. Get over yourself. If anything you are a prejudicial bigot against mormons.

Why are you being mean here, Hammer?

[juliann]

You might have a point if the verse did not explicitly say "skin of blackness."

You might have a point if the Bible didn't talk about "skin" turning dark because of bad fortune or unrighteousness.

[juliann]

Wow...accoording to Hinkley's statement regarding that people that make disparaging remarks about people of other races not being allowed to call themselves Christian....That means by his very own definition, there are many past LDS prophets that cannot call themselves Christian. Now that's a doozy!!! The guy from the 50's comes to mind but I cannot think of his name off hand.

Give me a few minutes and I will find the exact quote I am looking for.

Yours is the exact quote we look for. A perfect example of why it doesn't make a hill of beans what constructive, honorable statement anybody says as long as it can be ridiculed. Not one mention of the quote and the powerful message...that might be a good thing. It might help race relations.

Back to the regularly scheduled race baiting!

[Warship]

Juliann,

You might have a point if the Bible didn't talk about "skin" turning dark because of bad fortune or unrighteousness.

Call for evidence.

What could those skins be?

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=17057&hl=

[thesometimesaint]

Warship:

Possible correlation.

http://history-nz.org/maori3.html

[Pahoran]

Hammer, I got news for ya Honey....The fact that your daughter is being denied the recommend that she so badly wants, and accoording to LDS standards is worthy of, is NOT, I repeat NOT a decision of the Lord. This is a decision of clearly uninformed men that have absolutely no idea what it means to be bipolar. And she took the meds when she was 8 for crying out loud and it is STILL being held against her?!!

No. It is not.

You really need to learn how to read what is written instead of merely assuming what your prejudices tell you to expect.

Here again is what Hammer said:

Let me explain. Last night my 26 year old single daughter tried for the 3rd time to gain a temple recommend. She wants so badly to receive her endowments. She has tried to be called on a mission

but was denied the opportunity because she had been given 'bi-pollar' drugs when she was 8 years old and took them for two months. This being in her history she was red flagged and given a psychological screening and found not fit for a normal mission. She could be called to be a greeter at the church office building but that was it.

Note: she is not being refused a Temple Recommend because of her one bipolar episode. Rather, that episode caused her mission application to be "red flagged." However, she wasn't refused the opportunity to serve until a current psych-screen showed her to not be fit. Your high dudgeon is misplaced.

No MTC, No Temple endowments.

Young single members ordinarily don't just go through the Temple just to see what's "going on." They go because they're either about to serve a mission or get married. Hammer's daughter is doing neither. If she is still single when she's older, she will be permitted to go through the Temple without either of those conditions attaching.

This is appalling and frankly I feel sorry for your daughter. Does she have outbursts, emotional swings, violent tendencies, etc.? If she functions the same as any general person of society then I see no reason that she is being denied something she so clearly wants and is deserving of. (Why she wants it, I'll never understand, but to each their own.)

Thank you for so frankly admitting that you are incapable of understanding the perspective of a believing Latter-day Saint. Such candour from a critic is as refreshing as it is rare.

I also believe that the priesthood ban on Blacks was absolutely positively NOT of God either. This was man's bigoted and offensive decision. Period.

And does this opinion arise from the same kind of careful, dispassionate analysis as the foregoing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sethbag]

Response to Flavo, who used the idea that the priesthood was restricted by lineage:

Our story all along is that when we are baptised we are adopted into that lineage, and that means black people were adopted into the lineage when they are baptised too. Whatever lineage problems should have existed were supposedly fixed by adoption. And then there's the problem with "one drop" policies where you could have had some Jew who might even be able to trace his bloodline straight back to Abraham, for Pete's sake, but if he had one parent, or grand-parent, or even great-great-grandparent who was a black African, he couldn't have the priesthood. What happened to this guy's lineage? You're saying that Melchizedek's own great-great-[lot more greats]-grandson wasn't of the proper lineage to receive the priesthood because there was a black great-great-grandparent snuck in there?

Hammer: I love the way you apply the "line upon line" concept to reconcile Joseph Smith's having ordained some black men to the priesthood. He apparently didn't really understand the concept, and the LDS church leaders had to learn "line upon line" that black men weren't supposed to get the priesthood, eh? And this doesn't sound like a stretch to you? It's unbelievable to me how blithely some of you can look around and latch onto any rationalization and then just run with it. You know, with all of the revelations and heavenly visitations and personal ordinations by resurrected beings and whatnot having to do with the priesthood, and all of the revelations "from God" that made it into the Doctrine and Covenants on the priesthood, God simply chose to leave the whole "no blacks" thing out of it and let the church leaders figure this out "line upon line"?

[Hammer]

Hammer, I got news for ya Honey....The fact that your daughter is being denied the recommend that she so badly wants, and accoording to LDS standards is worthy of, is NOT, I repeat NOT a decision of the Lord. This is a decision of clearly uninformed men that have absolutely no idea what it means to be bipolar. And she took the meds when she was 8 for crying out loud and it is STILL being held against her?!!

No. It is not.

You really need to learn how to read what is written instead of merely assuming what your prejudices tell you to expect.

Here again is what Hammer said:

Let me explain. Last night my 26 year old single daughter tried for the 3rd time to gain a temple recommend. She wants so badly to receive her endowments. She has tried to be called on a mission

but was denied the opportunity because she had been given 'bi-pollar' drugs when she was 8 years old and took them for two months. This being in her history she was red flagged and given a psychological screening and found not fit for a normal mission. She could be called to be a greeter at the church office building but that was it.

Note: she is not being refused a Temple Recommend because of her one bipolar episode. Rather, that episode caused her mission application to be "red flagged." However, she wasn't refused the opportunity to serve until a current psych-screen showed her to not be fit. Your high dudgeon is misplaced.

No MTC, No Temple endowments.

Young single members ordinarily don't just go through the Temple just to see what's "going on." They go because they're either about to serve a mission or get married. Hammer's daughter is doing neither. If she is still single when she's older, she will be permitted to go through the Temple without either of those conditions attaching.

This is appalling and frankly I feel sorry for your daughter. Does she have outbursts, emotional swings, violent tendencies, etc.? If she functions the same as any general person of society then I see no reason that she is being denied something she so clearly wants and is deserving of. (Why she wants it, I'll never understand, but to each their own.)

Thank you for so frankly admitting that you are incapable of understanding the perspective of a believing Latter-day Saint. Such candour from a critic is as refreshing as it is rare.

I also believe that the priesthood ban on Blacks was absolutely positively NOT of God either. This was man's bigoted and offensive decision. Period.

And does this opinion arise from the same kind of careful, dispassionate analysis as the foregoing?

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks Pahoran. I didn't catch that post or I would have set it straight. BTW my daughter was told by her bishop that he discussed her case with the STake PResident and she will be getting her endowments this Saturday morning. Men and line of autority inspired by the Lord in the right time and in the right way.

[Teancum]

I just posted an article on my blog dealing with racism I encountered within the Church while serving a mission, and the "theory" that has been offered by some member of the Church that the revelation to not extend the Priesthood to blacks was not from the Lord and an error made by Church leadership because they were "men of their time."

Blacks and the Priesthood

My question to the board is how many of you do believe this revelation was received in error? And if you do not believe this what are your theories as to why the Lord did not extend the Priesthood to all worthy males sooner?

I do not believe the revelation was in error but was to correct and error as well as abhorent speculative teachings that you pointed out that were used to justify institutional bigotry. I believe the change would have been made earlier were it not for a number of strong apostled that stood in President McKay's and Brown's way.

Teancum

[Teancum]

I just posted an article on my blog dealing with racism I encountered within the Church while serving a mission, and the "theory" that has been offered by some member of the Church that the revelation to not extend the Priesthood to blacks was not from the Lord and an error made by Church leadership because they were "men of their time."

Blacks and the Priesthood

My question to the board is how many of you do believe this revelation was received in error? And if you do not believe this what are your theories as to why the Lord did not extend the Priesthood to all worthy males sooner?

I am completely convinced--in fact, I have a sure testimony--of the following:

1) The 1978 revelation was divinely inspired. Without question.

2) All those who lived and died before that time, who did not have the opportunity to receive the blessings of the Priesthood in this life, will have that opportunity in the next. Thus, they are denied no blessing available to others.

I am also convinced of the following:

1) Whatever the true reasons for the ban, the explanations given by various people, including Presidents of the Church, were speculative attempts to explain it. Thus, any honest critic, should such ever appear, will make a clear distinction between the two things and not attempt to conflate them. All the evidence shows that, from an early time, the ban was supported by post hoc explanations that were not offered as revealed truth.

2) While the ban was in force, the only proper thing for any Latter-day Saint to do was to obey it.

Regards,

Pahoran

If you believe all attempts to explain the ban, including those by Church Presidents, were speculative, then what reasons can you give for the ban? It seems nobody ever had any explanations other then speculative ones, though I think Brigham Young would disagree with you that his comments were speculative. So what gave?

Really, my guess is you have no answer, nor do I,other then the ones given. Thus my conclusion that it was a mistake perpetuted by ignorance and bigotry. And I will qualify that to state that had I been in the same time and culture as many of these men were I may have done the same thing.

Teancum

[Hammer]

If you believe all attempts to explain the ban, including those by Church Presidents, were speculative, then what reasons can you give for the ban? It seems nobody ever had any explanations other then speculative ones, though I think Brigham Young would disagree with you that his comments were speculative. So what gave?

Really, my guess is you have no answer, nor do I,other then the ones given. Thus my conclusion that it was a mistake perpetuted by ignorance and bigotry. And I will qualify that to state that had I been in the same time and culture as many of these men were I may have done the same thing.

Teancum

There is biblical teachings as a foundation. I may be able to come by those but one I know for a fact was that Ham having married into the cursed linage had son's who were no able to have the preisthood. I could look that up.

Genesis 9:

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, aCursed be bCanaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his aservant.

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

[Sethbag]

Hammer, let me get this straight.

Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Noah got plastered drinking wine and passed out naked in his tent.

His son Ham, entered the tent, saw that Noah was naked, and went out and told his two brothers.

His two brothers, Shem and Japheth, took a blanket or garment of some sort and backed into the tent, keeping their gaze averted so they would not see their father naked. They covered his body.

When Noah woke up, he somehow knew that Ham had seen him while he was naked, whereupon he pronounced a curse on Canaan, Ham's son, that Canaan's lineage would be servants forever.

Ok, now this is why the blacks could not hold the priesthood?

Are you joking? A son saw his old man passed out drunk and naked in his tent, and for that heinous crime an entire race of people were cut off from the priesthood and temple ordinances in the LDS church for 140 years or so?

Well, there you have it folks.

Of course, I know full well that this isn't the explanation most LDS would give. I think Hammer's out in The Twilight Zone on this one.

But Pahoran's answer isn't all that better. According to Pahoran, generations of LDS church prophets were all mistaken in giving their speculation as to why the blacks were denied the priesthood, but thinks it's 100% for sure that the ban in the first place came from God. Pahoran, why isn't it just as likely that the original black priesthood ban was just as uninspired as you claim all their justifications were? While they're getting everything else wrong, why isn't it just as likely that they got the original ban wrong too?

[Warship]

thesometimesaint,

Warship:

Possible correlation.

http://history-nz.org/maori3.html

Skin tatooing is interesting. But I'm not aware of it being widespread in Central America. Some other interesting options are the wearing of enemies' skins and skin painting...painting the skin by smoke in Mesoamerica particularly caught my attention because of this practice being metioned in the bible.

EpJer.1

[20] Their faces are blacked through the smoke that cometh out of the temple.

It is used here negatively against babylonian temple practices. I find that interesting in that the girdle garments are are also temple imagery and their being "black"ened with blood is also viewed as negative.

Although those candidates are interesting, I feel all the textual evidence points to them being the skin girdle garments as I argued for in the thread I linked to last post.

It seems all the physical markers (except the red dot in the forehead) of the Lamanites can be found in the bible in an Isaiah passage Nephi quotes and "likens" unto his people.

They include:

1.Nakedness

2. Bald head

3. The girdle garments

Ofcourse one can find references to these elsewhere besides the Isaiah passage.

[flavo]

Thatâ??s the real question isn't it, if the Lord intended to withhold the Priesthood why did Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders give the priesthood to Elijah Abel, who was made a seventy by the Prophet Joseph, Black Pete and Walker Lewis. Please explain how one who communed with angels, ancient Prophets, the Lord and the Father could have gotten this wrong?

You quoted a lot of scriptures that don't make your case. For instance are you suggesting that the only people in this dispensation that could receive the Aaronic priesthood are direct descendants of Aaron? I know one my father who is not a descendant of Aaron according to his patriarchal blessing and he received the priesthood of Aaron before 1978.

I think most would agree that you are misusing those scriptures.

Furthermore when Christ told the Apostles to take the gospel to the gentiles I don't remember the caveat "except those black Africans". Did I miss something?

Please answer my questions.

Thanks,

JR

I think you need to read more carefully. The scriptures support the FACT that the priesthood in ancient times (not modern) was reserved to only one race. The bloodline of Abraham. The rest of the world was denied it. Christ himself, was sent only to the house of Israel. This ment that the gospel was withheld from the other cultures until after the crucufiction. Peter recieved the revelation to take the gospel to the gentiles. My point has nothing to do with the blacks in particular but that the Lord has withheld things from certain cultures or races of people until he dictated it otherwise. Please don't confuse my point to mean African Americans. I am trying to show that it has been done before, the withholding of things from others until the Lord reveals otherwise. The problem is that to many are looking at the color of the skin in respect to the withholding of the priesthood instead of the other side of the issue and that being a race of people reguardless of skin color. The Lord cursed races, blessed races, used diferent cultural differences to achieve plans. Why aren't people offended that the Lord's chosen people was one chosen culture? Why aren't people offended that the Lord chose in his earthly ministry to only go to the house of Israel? Where is all the reteric about the Lord cursing the son of Ham and the Canaanites? Where are the cultural discussions on why the Lord commanded the children of Israel to wipe out a culture? These were all done for the Lord's reasons, not man. The scriptures are full of how God used one race in favor of another, or where he used the races of man.

This issue of blacks and the priesthood as being something terrible is only one more stone that is being cast by those who do not accept Joseph Smith as a prohpet. It is not a racial thing, as far as discrimination against blacks, but a spiritual thing. For God's own reason was the black race denied the priesthood. For whatever reason it could have just as well been the Chinese, Irish, or any other culture. But because it happened to be the African American race that have a history of being discriminated against it seems an easy fan to flame the fire of speculation.

My whole point is to get people to look beyond the color of the skin and see that maybe it goes deeper. There was more contention in the Lord's church when the gentiles started being baptised than there is now with this issue. Within the church itself there is no great problem. The racial offense seems to be from outside the church. It is wrong for anyone to deny the fact that God himself has used the races of man that had his favor and also those that had found His condemnation.

[Moessers]

The church was under a looming potential threat to lose their tax exempt status at their schools for racist policies.

The temple in Brazil had no one to man it because everybody down there had negro blood.

Then... TA-DA!!!! A revelation...

[thesometimesaint]

Warship:

I know that some South and North American Indians used tatoos. But like you I am not aware of any Central American ones that do. It is a case of I just don't know. I'd be interested to find out for sure.