John Stewart Mormonism And The Negro

[juliann]

The "valiant in the pre-existence" repudiation has been on this board several times. (I don't have my PC available to me to find them). So have strong statements against racism. That is what is so mind numbingly pointless in repeating them...the only thing some want to remember are things like this horrid Steward book. When GBH came out with a very strongly worded statement about racism the usual suspects immediately rushed in to make fun of that and turn it into him calling BY a racist. It does begin to make me wonder what the agenda of those who do this really is...and I don't think it is improving race relations.

If I can find the statements again I'll post them for you, P UT.

[phaedrus ut]

If I can find the statements again I'll post them for you, P UT.

Thank you Juliann

[Tramper]

First President statement in 1949 said: "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality"

Isn't this still the only possible explanation of the ban? The FP statement are fully in harmony with Stewart's well written article.

Why should we as LDS be afraid of the worldy reactions?

[selek]

First President statement in 1949 said: "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality"

Isn't this still the only possible explanation of the ban? The FP statement are fully in harmony with Stewart's well written article.

Why should we as LDS be afraid of the worldy reactions?

We are not afraid of worldly reaction. We are fighting lies from apostates and race-baiters.

The article you quote is niether authoritative nor endorsed by the Church. It was written and disseminated by an apostate organization.

The Church has repudiated the underlying notion and specifically disavowed statements made before 1978.

Stop misrepresenting your propoganda as Mormon and authoritative. It is neither.

[Tramper]

We are not afraid of worldly reaction. We are fighting lies from apostates and race-baiters.

The article you quote is niether authoritative nor endorsed by the Church. It was written and disseminated by an apostate organization.

The Church has repudiated the underlying notion and specifically disavowed statements made before 1978.

Stop misrepresenting your propoganda as Mormon and authoritative. It is neither.

OK Selek. Tell me what is wrong with the article from Stewart? Why did the ban last for more than 140 years? Shouldn't there be an explanation? I do not find a better explanation than the pre-existence behavior doctrine.

[selek]

OK Selek. Tell me what is wrong with the article from Stewart? Why did the ban last for more than 140 years? Shouldn't there be an explanation? I do not find a better explanation than the pre-existence behavior doctrine.

Okay- I'll repeat this for the fourth time in the hope that it sinks in:

The source for your article is an apostate group.

The article is not and has not been endorsed by the Church. Apostates DO NOT speak for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints!

The "not valiant in the Pre-Existence" rational, and all the rest of the speculation about the Ban has been repudiated by the Church.

The fact that you prefer an explanation from apostates instead of a simple and honest "we don't know" from the faithful leadership is extremely telling.

Stop trying to foist your propoganda and disinformation off as being endorsed or promulgated by the Church.

It isn't. You are engagin in both race-baiting and propaganda against the Church.

Stop pretending to be what you are not.

[Del March]

Tell me what is wrong with the article from Stewart?

It wasn't written by an LDS, it was never approved by the LDS Church, and it presents ideas that have officially been repudiated by the LDS Church.

Why did the ban last for more than 140 years?

We don't know.

Shouldn't there be an explanation?

Why should there be one?

I do not find a better explanation than the pre-existence behavior doctrine.

Then you have very little imagination indeed.

[juliann]

phaedrus, this is the best I can offer right now. I think it is particularly helpful to see the evolution...and how inconsistent it was and how many of the Brethren did not know its origin.

http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/history.html

[phaedrus ut]

The "not valiant in the Pre-Existence" rational, and all the rest of the speculation about the Ban has been repudiated by the Church.

Hi Selek,

You've said a few times now that the Church has repudiated this but as I mentioned in my first post replying to your claim it's something I've yet to see. I don't doubt that it exists and it would be nice if it does. But your bold declarations would be much stronger if you had an example.

Phaedrus

[juliann]

Tramper, if you want to talk about Stewart then do it...but stop insisting that we take a book by a journalist as a Church position. I'm sure a lot of people bought into it but if you are going to talk about the church's position on race then use at least semi-official statements. And if you are going to continue to imply that historical positions have anymore validity to us than they do to any other church then you need to be reported for flaming. I'm really sick of the race baiting.

[selek]

Hi Selek,

You've said a few times now that the Church has repudiated this but as I mentioned in my first post replying to your claim it's something I've yet to see. I don't doubt that it exists and it would be nice if it does. But your bold declarations would be much stronger if you had an example.

Phaedrus

Okay Phaedrus. We'll start with this one from Bruce R. McConkie:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth

and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore.â?

I'll check in with more as I locate them.

[phaedrus ut]

phaedrus, this is the best I can offer right now. I think it is particularly helpful to see the evolution...and how inconsistent it was and how many of the Brethren did not know its origin.

http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/history.html

Thanks Juliann,

The timeline was interesting I and noticed it did include the 1949 First Presidency Statement I included in my earlier post. I did notice the quote from Bruce R. McConkie that "we should forget everything that has been said in the past on this topic."

Phaedrus

[MorningStar]

This thread sucks.

[juliann]

Thanks Juliann,

The timeline was interesting I and noticed it did include the 1949 First Presidency Statement I included in my earlier post. I did notice the quote from Bruce R. McConkie that "we should forget everything that has been said in the past on this topic."

Phaedrus

The direct disavowals come before the 1949 statement which is interesting. I think the entire statement should be included since that pre-existence stuff snuck back in at that point. The strongest generic statement I have heard was Pres. Hinckley's recent one that the antis use to make it sound like he was calling previous prophets racist. But that does not address the pre-existence directly. Again, my books are boxed and my study under plastic and it will be the last room to be completed as this contractor cleans up and redoes what the previous one did.

[Obiwan]

but thanks to Signature Books I lost my old faith and began searching for spirituality. I have not yet given up on my old faith though. It gave me a comfort that I often miss.

Signature books is predominately "anti-mormon". So, it's not a wonder your current position.

Back to subject. I believe that Stewart's article correctly describes Mormon theology.

You would be seriously wrong. And it never has been close to such.

The scriptures teaching that the Pre-existance plays a role in where one is place in this earth life is a very different subject than valience is related to skin color. It has no role whatsoever.

Mark Petersen once said this: "A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin and with all the handicaps of that race, seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel, in spite of what they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there."

Kind of an ethno-centric statement of the times back then, but not LDS theology or belief.

I do not have an hidden agenda....

Maybe not, but just as signature books is not an accurate portrail of the LDS Church, your views aren't either.

I just feels that Stewart's position might as well be in harmony with the scriptures....

Feel all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You should maybe read the Pearl of Great Price a little more carefully on this subject.

[phaedrus ut]

Okay Phaedrus. We'll start with this one from Bruce R. McConkie:

I'll check in with more as I locate them.

The McConkie quote wasn't given in any official capacity. But rather it was something he authored in one of his many books.

I suspect that the "pre-existence" lore concerning blacks remain in the church specifically because it hasn't been repudiated by the church. At least not from what I've seen.

Phaedrus

[Stargazer]

This thread sucks.

Well, yes, it does. How discriminating of you to notice!

This subject seems to come up fairly frequently, and the same stupid racially-charged accusations of what is the "real" LDS doctrine, followed up by others with what is the real LDS doctrine.

New posters should first do a search on what subjects have been DONE TO DEATH, and try to avoid them unless they can come up with some genuinely new perspectives.

Now, where is that beating a dead horse icon? Ah, there it is...

[MorningStar]

Well, yes, it does. How discriminating of you to notice!

This subject seems to come up fairly frequently, and the same stupid racially-charged accusations of what is the "real" LDS doctrine, followed up by others with what is the real LDS doctrine.

New posters should first do a search on what subjects have been DONE TO DEATH, and try to avoid them unless they can come up with some genuinely new perspectives.

Now, where is that beating a dead horse icon? Ah, there it is...

Here! Another one!

Edited: Hmmm ... That's odd. It's not letting me post the picture. Just imagine a guy beating a dead horse.

[Tramper]

To Selek: Stewartâ??s article summarizes well the thinking of the day in the Mormon community. Compare his conclusions with what past GA:s has said on this matter. The fact that one can find this outstanding article on webpage belonging to apostate group doesnâ??t change the fact that there close similarities, near to being identical.

To Juliann: I do not wish have a heated discussion on this important subject. Iâ??m only seeking for an explanation and clarification. For more than 140 years the LDS church actively did discriminate the blacks. The church motivated the discrimination with that it was the will of God and that souls of the black people belonged to souls that had not been valiant in the big war in Heaven. The revelation in 1978 was a result of many years of sincere prayers which indicates that God was very unwilling to change the practice to begin. I find the fact that it took many years as evidence that the less valiant doctrine is still a part of Mormon theology. The many years of waiting could be interpreted as Gods punishment of the less valiant souls. If the practice/doctrine was wrong to begin, why did the change took so long?

A bigger issue is to what extent churches and other organized religions should be allowed to hide behind the bill of rights and actively discriminate ethnic groups, people of different sexual orientation etc., and a discrimination that would not be acceptable in the rest of the society?

I do love the church and its members. I do still find inspiration in the scriptures. I do however more regard the scriptures as results of peopleâ??s struggle to find God more than actually being the word of God. I do seek divinity and I have not fully abandoned the gospel that I once believed 100 percent in.

The repeated writings on this matter could easily be ended by a clarification.

[furii]

The revelation in 1978 was a result of many years of sincere prayers which indicates that God was very unwilling to change the practice to begin. I find the fact that it took many years as evidence that the less valiant doctrine is still a part of Mormon theology. The many years of waiting could be interpreted as Gods punishment of the less valiant souls. If the practice/doctrine was wrong to begin, why did the change took so long?

Are you saying you choose to believe that God was enjoying watching black people squirm, laughing maniacally at the futile prayers of the leaders to save their poor not-as-righteous souls? And then one day decided he was sick of all the whining? Or that black people as a race were suddenly no longer punished? Where is the justification for a temporary "punishment' of "less than valiant souls." Are we to believe that really the only less valiant souls are those who were born before 1978, and that those after were perfectly great but just happened to be black?

A simpler thought, not necessarily an explanation but something that often helps me with difficult antimormon spews, is knowing that God tries his people. Maybe the less valiants are those who refuse to join the church or fall away from it simply from the crap they receive from the world for joining a racist sexist blahblahblah cult religion. A refining fire of sorts.

So, agreed, the many years of waiting COULD be interpreted as God's punishment. Unfortunately, that's a wrong interpretation. And we as a church don't know the reason, so we take things on faith.

The repeated writings on this matter could easily be ended by a clarification.

You know what would really help me out? If God would come down and hold a press conference and clarify that whole talking donkey thing. And explain why he enstated polygamy. I'd also like to know exactly what piece of what any church leader has ever said was truth or just their personal rant. Sigh. One can dream right?

You can't blame the church leaders for not adding clarification. I'm sure they're just as baffled as we are. But you don't demand knowledge from God, it comes in his own time. Line upon line and all that good stuff.

-edited to the best of my ability for extreme sarcasm.

[koakaipo]

Hmm..I don't think it's fair to look at this situation and decide those who fall away or don't join the church over the race issue is a very good way to "refine" the church. I know and have known members in our church who assert a sort of spiritual hierarchy that's determined by race and skin color and the pre-existence. I have had it been offered that Hitler must have been more valiant in the pre-existence than me because I'm darker. HOw stupid is that? Honestly, people like that are in the minority in the church cause most folks have better heads on their shoulders, but why aren't folks like that being refined, instead of the people they are allegedly "testing?" I'm sorry, but I think that's a backwards way of looking at things.

We don't even need the ANSWER to why the ban is lifted. But if we can get more accessible clarifications as to what NOT to believe or take stock in, I think that could help out very much. And I think clarifications will honestly come about sooner than later. And not cause we are EVEN waiting for God to direct us, we have already abandoned certain justifications that were seen as common knowledge years before. We say we don't know now officially. So, that in and of itself means we have turned our backs on pre-existence and Cain offerings of earlier years that just don't make sense in this day and age. All we have to do now is put it in writing.

[juliann]

The repeated writings on this matter could easily be ended by a clarification.

You have done nothing but spam the same thought while providing a dated and unrepresentative book that tickles your fancy. Clarification won't do a darn thing for you because you have not bothered to supply even one recent statement on race. You don't care what the brethren are saying, you prefer books like the one you are so obsessed with. That says more about you than my church.

Produce the statements about race given within the last decade before you utter one more ugly accusation, call for documentation.

[koakaipo]

Produce the statements about race given within the last decade before you utter one more ugly accusation, call for documentation.

I agree. I think that's the big thing to keep in mind. The church is quickly internationalizing and diversifying, and people tend to not want to give credit where credit is due.

[Doctor Steuss]

The McConkie quote wasn't given in any official capacity. But rather it was something he authored in one of his many books.

If I recall correctly, in the same publication he made that statement (Personal Testimony of Revelation on Priesthood), he also made reference to the curse on the seed of Ham and Cain -- although he did state that it was now removed -- and also reafirms the premortality reasoning.

I suspect that the "pre-existence" lore concerning blacks remain in the church specifically because it hasn't been repudiated by the church. At least not from what I've seen.

Phaedrus

I seem to remember an official repudiation, but it is quite possible that my "remembering" is a result of wishful thinking...

Edit:

Here are the McConkie statements from the publication ...

"Ancient Curse Removed"

The ancient curse is no more. The seed of Cain and Ham and Canaan and Egyptus and Pharaoh (Abr. 1:20-27; Moses 5:16-41; 7:8, 22)--all these now have power to rise up and bless Abraham as their father. All these, Gentile in lineage, may now come and inherit by adoption all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Rom. 8:14-24; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Teachings, pp. 149-50). All these may now be numbered with those in the one fold of the one shepherd who is Lord of all.

"Gospel Preached on a Priority Basis"

There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There is not any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of this; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of preexistence and of our premortal devotion and faith.

[selek]

To Selek: Stewartâ??s article summarizes well the thinking of the day in the Mormon community. Compare his conclusions with what past GA:s has said on this matter. The fact that one can find this outstanding article on webpage belonging to apostate group doesnâ??t change the fact that there close similarities, near to being identical.

It does not summarize "LDS thinking of the day". It is not, has not, and does not reflect the leadership of the Church because the Church did not and has not endorsed the matter- regardless of how many quotes you pull out of context.

Stewart was never entitled to speak for the Church. The rabid tome you are so desperate to endorse is nothing more than HIS opinions on the matter.

The quotes you pull out of context are also mere opinion. None of them reflected the official position of the Church at any time. You are arguing with innuendo and supposition rather than fact. It is dishonest and damning. You are bearing false witness against the Church.

But then again, that's the role of an apostate.

For the last time, stop trying to represent the words of an apostate as the mind and will of the Church.

Here is the Church's position, as stated by the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Gordon B. Hinckley:

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. 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?Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

To Juliann: I do not wish have a heated discussion on this important subject. Iâ??m only seeking for an explanation and clarification. For more than 140 years the LDS church actively did discriminate the blacks.

President Hinckley provided that clarification in the quote above.

The church motivated the discrimination with that it was the will of God and that souls of the black people belonged to souls that had not been valiant in the big war in Heaven.

This is a lie. The Church never adopted the position that skin color was tied to being valiant in the Pre-Existence. There was speculation and ignorance on the matter, but it was never the Church's stated position.

The revelation in 1978 was a result of many years of sincere prayers which indicates that God was very unwilling to change the practice to begin. I find the fact that it took many years as evidence that the less valiant doctrine is still a part of Mormon theology.

This is speculation heaped upon falsehood. We don't know specifically why the Ban was instituted- the revelation or rationalization (which ever took place) was not recorded. It was nonetheless accepted and understood by the Brethren. No definitive reason has ever been given, though there has been much speculation.

The many years of waiting could be interpreted as Gods punishment of the less valiant souls. If the practice/doctrine was wrong to begin, why did the change took so long?

You are starting from an a priori assumption that has no basis in fact. If it were not a punishment, but instead a trial, then it began and ended with the Lord's will and pleasure.

A bigger issue is to what extent churches and other organized religions should be allowed to hide behind the bill of rights and actively discriminate ethnic groups, people of different sexual orientation etc., and a discrimination that would not be acceptable in the rest of the society?

So, are you admitting that this particular hobby-horse is part of a larger social agenda rather than a quest for truth?

I do love the church and its members. I do still find inspiration in the scriptures. I do however more regard the scriptures as results of peopleâ??s struggle to find God more than actually being the word of God.

The scriptures themselves contradict your characterization.

The repeated writings on this matter could easily be ended by a clarification.

Yet numerous clarifications have been offered, with no visible affect on the shills, charlatans, and race-baiters.

You have your clarification above in the quotes from Presidents Hinckley and Packer.

If they are not enough, then nothing else ever will be.

Selek I tire of telling you to calm down. The next time you call anybody a liar or name call you are going to be suspended. ~ Mods