John Stewart Mormonism And The Negro

[Tramper]

To Selek and Juliann. I do not want to have a heated discussion on this sensitive subject. No I am not an apostate. I am more a Latter-Day Skeptic. I have not ruled out the church and I chose to maintain an active member.

The question I am seeking an answer to is why the discirimantion ever took place. If these 140 years of discrimination never were wrong, why wasn't it wrong?

To Selek. I continue to claim that Stewart's article is in harmony with traditional Mormon theology. Read the following quotes.

Brigham Young wrote:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less."

In 1954, Mormon elder Mark E. Peterson discussed blacks and the priesthood in an address to a Convention of Teachers of Religion at the College Level at Brigham Young University. He said:

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a 'Nation of Priesthood holders'...."

"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."

It is not clear whether Peterson's reference for servant status for all persons of African-Americans ancestry refers to status as a literal servant, or as a slave. In theological terminology, as in many translations of the Bible, "servant" often means "slave."

Bruce R. McConkie, touched on the black issue in his book Mormon Doctrine: He wrote in an early edition of his book about the repercussions on earth of a war in heaven:

"Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others....Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Moses 5:16-41; 12:22) Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. (Abraham 1:20-27) Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. ...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence....The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from."

The quote from McConkie is of special interest because it connects the doctrine with scriptual references.

I do not expect an answer from Selek on whether or not those abovementioned statements are in harmony with Stewart's article or not.

This is my last posting on this issue. I do have a more diplomatic and interesting thread coming up.

Finally. I love the church and I love Joseph Smith. I find joy in the message from church. The only problem is that I don't believe anymore.

[juliann]

You refuse to post even one quote from modern prophets. Disgusting.

[Tramper]

You refuse to post even one quote from modern prophets. Disgusting.

I would gladly do if there were any quotes that did answer my question why the discrimination took place. 140 years is a long time. The absence of quotes is a direct result of the absence of explanations and clarifications by modern prophets.

Juliann: I would be glad if you could accept my sincerity. I love Signature Books, but I also love the prophet. His message that racism has no place in church could not have been better expressed, but they do not explain the history.

[Tramper]

One last: The alternatives about the 140 years of discrimination.

1) The less valiant doctrine is the explanation, however God found the price were fully paid and therefore ended the ban.

2) The discrimination and the less valiant doctrine were never correct. The prophets and GA:s were all wrong (btw inspired by whom?)

3) The discrimination were right, but the preached less valiant doctrine were not the correct cause.

You were asked to produce documentation of modern statements by at least two posters. Board policy states: - Do post substantive comments. While opinions are allowed, whenever possible posters should provide sources, the full context of quotes, scriptures and other citations, and links to relevant information. If asked for documentation for your opinion, you will be expected to provide it.

[sixidahos]

I think history including the Old and New Testaments would agree with you. I am often curious at the christian conglomerate world and their constant barrage at the LDS church specifically on how we are so wrong because we don't see things as they do - and they are right because there is more of them??? History says that the one true gospel is not going to be the overwhelmingly acceptable one socially.

I agree with you. The Old Testement has many examples of Polygamy, racism, sexism, murder, coruption, etc. from it's leadership. The LDS Church has the unfortunate disadvantage of a history that is less than 2000 years old. On the other hand, except for a few fringe religious groups like the Friends (Quakers), few Christian Churches in the US were against slavery until the war and economy forced them into choosing a side. I dare say economic factors had more to do with them fighting a war than personal concerns over slavery.

[selek]

I agree with you. The Old Testement has many examples of Polygamy, racism, sexism, murder, coruption, etc. from it's leadership. The LDS Church has the unfortunate disadvantage of a history that is less than 2000 years old. On the other hand, except for a few fringe religious groups like the Friends (Quakers), few Christian Churches in the US were against slavery until the war and economy forced them into choosing a side. I dare say economic factors had more to do with them fighting a war than personal concerns over slavery.

Too many of our people think that history began the day they were born. Like chivalry, historical perspective is pretty much dead.

[phaedrus ut]

I guess I'm a little confused that tramper is being called to task here. He quoted from the same "The First Presidency Statement on the Negro Question" that specifically included his point. Posters have repeatedly claimed that the church has "repudiated" that teaching but when asked for references only provided something vague written in a non-official capacity.

If tramper is guilty of failing to produce documentation to back up his claims he's not alone. Yet he's alone in criticism apparently.

Phaedrus

[Doctor Steuss]

I guess I'm a little confused that tramper is being called to task here. He quoted from the same "The First Presidency Statement on the Negro Question" that specifically included his point. Posters have repeatedly claimed that the church has "repudiated" that teaching but when asked for references only provided something vague written in a non-official capacity.

If tramper is guilty of failing to produce documentation to back up his claims he's not alone. Yet he's alone in criticism apparently.

Phaedrus

I guess about as official as you're going to get is the scriptures...

2 Nephi 21:3

And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord; and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears

Mosiah 27:3

And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;

2 Nephi 26:28

Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.

D&C 78: 5-6

5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

Others would include:

Deuteronomy 16: 19

2 Chronicles 19: 7

Proverbs 24: 23

Proverbs 28: 2

Ephesians 6: 9

Romans 2: 11

1 Peter 1: 17

D&C. 1:34-35

D&C 38:16

D&C 38:26

Acts 10:34

[juliann]

If tramper is guilty of failing to produce documentation to back up his claims he's not alone. Yet he's alone in criticism apparently.

That wasn't the claim, this was his OP:

I do find this article written by John Stewart to be rather impressive. Isn't much of these ideas expressed in the article still valid?

http://magazine.mormonfundamentalism.org/mormon_negro.htm

The true church ought to be at odds with the world. The circumstances under which we are born could very well be the result of our behavior in the pre-existence. I think that behavior and blessings are an eternal principle. We know for instance that we had our free agency in the pre-existence.

I do not find the article to be racist. It is the work of a brave and enlightned man. In short; a fine piece of work.

I find that a disgusting and shameful allegation when he will not even produce one recent statement from the Brethren. How can he say what is valid today when he will not acknowledge anything said since the 60s?

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.

I lived "in the day". This was an acutely painful situation for many. It was not the thinking of the day and again, Tramper refuses to produce anything but McConkie in a book he was asked not to print.

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 not true and if Tramper had paid any attention to anything but his racebaiting he would see just from the link I provided that even BY repudiated the war in heaven line. It didn't come up until that 1949 statement. So Tramper has patchworked a bunch of convenient quotes that are on any anti website while refusing to produce anything that might contradict his conclusion.

So if someone states that such and such is our current thinking then he is obligated to provide documentation of our current thinking.

[mnn727]

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things .... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever 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 our light line upon line and precept upon precept. 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 any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 Aug. 1978

[phaedrus ut]

So if someone states that such and such is our current thinking then he is obligated to provide documentation of our current thinking.

Ok I see where you're coming from.

I guess my perspective is that there seems to be a segment of the church that retained this rationalization for the priesthood ban. Even though the 1949 statement among others suggest it was a preexistence issue as you pointed out there are others that contradict that point.

Documentation of the current thinking would be difficult. From what I can tell, since 1978 the church has never stated the reason or rational for the ban. So there is not consensus current thinking just the retention of past teaching that permeates with the culture.

Phaedrus

[Calm]

So there is not consensus current thinking just the retention of past teaching that permeates with the culture.

Phaedrus

If it truly permeates the culture, there should be some pretty strong evidence of it that can be found.

[Zeta-Flux]

1. As Obiwan said, the idea that we are placed where we are based upon God's plan for us, including our needs [taking into account our pre-mortal state] is very different than saying some of us were less valiant in the pre-mortal state.

2. The only ones to teach the idea that blacks were less valiant, were apostles giving their opinions, who did not have the authority to declare new doctrine binding upon the church. Furthermore, recent apostles have stated explicitly that it was a wrong idea. For example, as has been quoted, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said to ignore his opinions on the matter. Even more recently, Elder Holland (on the PBS special) discussed how it was incorrect.

3. Presidents of the church (who do have authority to proclaim binding doctrines) have specifically stated that it is an incorrect notion. If I'm not mistaken even Brigham Young said that it was incorrect that anyone on the earth was not valiant in their first estate. (I might be able to dig up the quote, but someone else could find it faster than I.)

[kamenraider]

First of all, the fact that the LDS Church withheld the priesthood from those of black African descent for nearly 150 years has nothing to do with racism in the sense of judging people because of pigmentation or whatever. The ban was based on lineage due to a divine curse. Period. There were many different nationalities with dark pigmentation that weren't affected. It has nothing to do with slavery either. Canaan was cursed with being a servant, which is different than being a slave. If early LDS leaders made statements that were tolerant of slavery, it was usually due to political considerations.

I think it's really strange that so many LDS members are so afraid of being perceived as racists. I have black family members (through marriage to one of my spouse's siblings) who know my beliefs regarding the priesthood ban, etc. and couldn't care less because they know I'm not a racist.

As far as anyone being neutral in the pre-existence, I think it's been settled that it just wasn't so. However, that doesn't remove the fact that where we are born here is based on what happened there in some way at least. Thinking of people being born as a certain nationality or race as "good" or "bad" is oversimplifying things I think. I mean, we don't think of mission calls that way.

Just because Stewart's book was posted on a fundamentalist website doesn't discredit it's content (BTW Selek, there's no such thing as "The Woolley sect" -- multiple groups are based on Woolley's claims). I corresponded with one of the people that was in charge of that site a number of years ago to find out how he thought OD 2 affected the priesthood held by Church members. As part of his reply he said:

Incidentally, some time ago, before I came in contact with the Fulness of the Gospel, when serving for the second time as a Bishop, I presided over the 2nd largest Ward in the UK, which also had the 2nd largest proportion of Black members. When the subject of the changes of 1978 came up, which was rarely, there was much surprise, together with a little embarassment, from black members as the vast majority, 95% plus, had joined after that time. This was in the period 1984 to 1990 - today even fewer people are really aware of the changes. Personally, living in a very multicultural society and having close contact with people of all races (including Tlingit's, Athabascans, etc. on my mission for the church to Alaska!) I value people for the quality of their spirit, not the colour of the skin. I felt black people to have as much of the Spirit as any other group.

It was interesting to see that Bruce R. McConkie said that the curse was no more. I guess if the curse has been removed then the token of the curse should be as well.

Here's a interesting passage of scripture (posted with reservation since it's so dated):

Zechariah 14:21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

I suppose it means that the rental counter and cafeteria workers will be thrown out.

[Orpheus]

I guess I'm a little confused that tramper is being called to task here. He quoted from the same "The First Presidency Statement on the Negro Question" that specifically included his point. Posters have repeatedly claimed that the church has "repudiated" that teaching but when asked for references only provided something vague written in a non-official capacity.

If tramper is guilty of failing to produce documentation to back up his claims he's not alone. Yet he's alone in criticism apparently.

Phaedrus

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present.

All posters need to give documentation when they are asked to or stop repeating themselveees.

[kamenraider]

I wonder when Deseret Book is going to stop publishing Doctrines of Salvation and Answers to Gospel Questions?

[Irondukesteve]

Personally....I dont think that 1 or 2 are totally unacceptable. It seems that the Genesis Group have accepted a revisited form of the Missouri Hypothesis to explain the negro priesthood ban. And to be honest with you it makes complete sense to me. I do not mind apologizing for it as being an historical mistake and the rersult of man made policy that become a doctrine of some sorts. It just shows one how fallible church leaders can be but also how we need to forgive them.

[Tramper]

To Juliann: I do accept what modern prophets teach about the current situation. I feel fine about the present situation. I do however find the historical ban interesting. Why did it ever take place? We donâ??t know is not an acceptable answer for me.

The less valiant doctrine is not exclusive for the black people; it could also from a LDS-perspective be argued that the doctrine explains the exclusive Abrahamic covenant in ancient Israel. The gospel was preserved for the Israelites whom were expected not to intermarry.

Prophets and apostles are supposed to be inspired men. In their teachings they frequently have made well grounded explanations based on the scriptures. The teaching of the church has never been racial in the traditional way. There is however a very thin line between discrimination and racism. It is all a matter of definitions.

I insist that I find the silence from the LDS-hierarchy upon this important issue troublesome and puzzling. Why should religion get away easier with discrimination than ordinary ideologies, by claiming that God (unproven as he is) donâ??t want to explain the reasons for a, in many ways, hurtful discrimination. When I read about this subject (in Quinnâ??s book Extensions of Power) it was painful to learn that temple blessings actually were revoked when there were a discovery of a drop of negro blood in the genealogy tree. What drove LDS-leaders to continue to make these cases of revoking the priesthood and the temple blessings?

When it comes to sources I will come back later. I do fully respect the received caution. However I wish to make known that I have referred to an official statement dated in 1949 from the First Presidency. The quotes from McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith are well known, but I shall make the asked clarifications about the sources for these quotes.

Finally; I want to make it clear that I donâ??t regard the LDS-church as a racist church or and I donâ??t claim that those different races are discriminated in any known certain way within the church today.

It is however difficult to escape the conclusion that the 1978 revelation were partly a result of the hard pressures on the church from the outside world in the same way that CPM were abandoned in 1904 (a abandonment that began with the manifesto in 1890). I do also believe that the scientific community repudiated the claims that the black skin was a sign of curse explained by Cainâ??s slewing of Abel. Black skin occurred much earlier in history and we all have a drop of black blood inside of us.

I donâ??t exclude the possibility that the outside world will force the church to receive further revelations on different subjects as the issue of female priesthood and the acceptance of same-sex families. These pressures will come in many ways. Science will ultimately prove that same-sex relations are biologically determined and that we find many examples in the animal world of such behavior. In the society there will certainly be a dramatic shift in values in this area, in the same that the segregation question changed American in the sixties and hereby paving the way for a revelation. It may be the other way around of course. It will however be very interesting to follow the development in these areas.

[Kevin Christensen]

For a discussion of the pre-LDS origins of what are mislabled LDS racist doctrines see here:

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/06/cur...m-foiled-again/

It begins with "Itâ??s going to take me a few paragraphs to get there, so hereâ??s advance notice that this post is intended to be a pointer to recent scholarship on how biblical curses associated with the stories of Cain and Ham came to be misinterpreted by some Christians as applying to dark-skinned Africans."

Key observations and sources include a "2003 book, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Jewish Studies scholar David Goldenberg explains that a belief that Cainâ??s â??markâ? was black skin is a relatively recent phenomenon."

Also Stephen Haynes, Noahâ??s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Subsequent to the publication of these sources, any discussion of various LDS opinons that does not consider them does not merit serious consideration. All the LDS were doing is exhaling what they inhaled from the larger culture. Stirling recently reviewed both of these books in BYU Studies.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[erichard]

Just because Stewart's book was posted on a fundamentalist website doesn't discredit it's content

Why should you even have to say this so late in the thread?

I think it is dishonest for someone to keep trying to leave the impression that this book was "written by an apostate" when it clearly was not. He was an accepted member of the church at the time.

On the other hand, this dishonesty-- and those who fail to point it out-- makes it easier to see who is being more honest about all of this.

Richard

You need a suspension if you have to resort to liar liar pants on fire over something like this. ~ Mods

[phaedrus ut]

If it truly permeates the culture, there should be some pretty strong evidence of it that can be found.

Here is a example. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the following

â??There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received lessâ?¦. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.â? (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pages 66-67)

You can buy the new edition of Doctrines of Salvation at Deseret Book. They call it "a must for every LDS library".

If you heard the interviews with Darron Smith or listened to the podcast on Mormon stories you'd hear him say that black LDS member still have to confront the non-valiant and curse of cain issues in the church.

Armand Mauss' talk from the 2003 FAIR conference talks about the pre-existence issue and how it and other racist apologetics used in the past to explain the ban. The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics. Mauss also states that the church hasn't officially disavowed the past teachings like curse of cain or less valiant and that "the official "explanation" offered these days for denying the priesthood to blacks is that "we don't know.""

If the church wants a good blueprint to candidly dismiss these past teachings I recommend this talk by Mauss as a good example.

Phaedrus

[selek]

Why should you even have to say this so late in the thread?

I think it is dishonest for someone to keep trying to leave the impression that this book was "written by an apostate" when it clearly was not. He was an accepted member of the church at the time.

There was no intended dishonesty. I was under the impression that he had left the Church at the time the book was written. Nonetheless, his work remains his own opinions, and was neither endorsed by the Church nor demonstrably representative of the Church as a whole.

On the other hand, this dishonesty-- and those who fail to point it out-- makes it easier to see who is being more honest about all of this.

Richard

There is a considerable amount of dishonesty on this thread- and a larger amount of ignorance and error(on both sides). Please do not conflate them.

[juliann]

To Juliann: I do accept what modern prophets teach about the current situation. I feel fine about the present situation. I do however find the historical ban interesting. Why did it ever take place? We donâ??t know is not an acceptable answer for me.

You need to pick a position and stick with it. You started this thread by saying that horrid book represented current thinking. I'm glad to see you changed your mind.

[juliann]

Armand Mauss' talk from the 2003 FAIR conference talks about the pre-existence issue and how it and other racist apologetics used in the past to explain the ban. The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics. Mauss also states that the church hasn't officially disavowed the past teachings like curse of cain or less valiant and that "the official "explanation" offered these days for denying the priesthood to blacks is that "we don't know.""

It looked to me that Elder Holland spoke against the valiant stuff in the above quote. That is the problem that I find in these discussions...no matter what is said it is never enough. It just might be true that they don't know the reason for the ban. In fact, I don't know anyone who does...do you? It can't even be traced back to specific statement or proclamation. Sometimes when you really don't know...honesty is the best policy.

I know at least one scholar who makes sure the church knows when she finds statements in books and such so they can get rid of them. I suggest everyone complain about the Doctrines of Salvation book so that such statements can be removed if they are going to champion it as something to have in our libraries.

[Del March]

Here is a example. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the following

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received lessâ?¦. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pages 66-67)

Wouldn't it be funny if Joseph Fielding Smith, and all others who spoke in this way, got the theory right, but the application wrong? What if being Black, poor and oppressed were the real blessing, while being born rich and advantaged were the curse? Remember what Brigham Young feared most for the LDS people: riches. He said that this people could go through the most horrendous persecutions and come out with their faith enhanced, but that he feared that riches would turn them away from God. And how right he was! We see this happening all the time.

This life is NOT what matters, after all: what matters is where we get in the eternities. So wouldn't it make sense that the REAL curse would be to be born with those things that exert the strongest pull AWAY from the Gospel: riches and advantages?

This is all a theory of course. It's just that I could never reconcile "being blessed" with "being born rich and advantaged". The BoM constantly shows us how being born rich and advantaged is in fact a HUGE obstacle to accepting and living the Gospel. And my own life has confirmed to me this principle again and again: I was born poor, and as long as I was poor, I had no problem noticing every blessing God gave me, and being grateful for them. Then at one time I got a good job, and it got harder to devote as much time to God, and to notice His hand in my life, because all my material stuff was taking my attention away. So... *shrugs* I guess this whole business just never made any sense to me.