Blacks And The Mormon Priesthood

[BlueDreams]

Just a bit of an update: I looked at his book the other day and scanned it. It's a thin book that I see as more of an outline of the issue and FAQ's about it. Right before I left I did find the last chapter of the book interesting. It was on diversity, the gospel, and possible spiritual growth from diversity...how different pov's could enhance our knowledge. I liked it, but was in a bit of a rush as I wanted to go hiking up the canyon (taking every chance I get....once school starts I won't have time).

I think it's a good book from what I could tell.

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Bluedreams I live in Australia, I would like to know what is your opinion and what is also the approach in the black lds community for new members that are negroes, should they be told about 1978 or not? There are some in my ward and I wasn't sure if it should be hushed up or they should be told incase they find out about it from the wrong source. I don't know the answer.

I don't think it should be. It's mentioned in my ward(s) and it is apart of fairly recent history. I don't feel it necessary to go into detail or our individual speculations in class or anything, but it isn't something that should be (or really could be) shoved under the rug. When I was younger I was somewhat like you (reached differing conclusions of course) in that I wanted to know more...wanted to reach the bottom of things. What I found is that there isn't really a bottom...not one easily attained at least from research. The people were in a similar boat: looking for answers and doing so within the views and times that they were born in. My conclusion on the ban are similar to koakaipo's. The ban wasn't inspired but allowed temporarily. The lifting, though, was.

Also sorry for the initial shock, it really caught me off gaurd with the view point and some of the language used to describe race (it's somewhat obsolete...or at least confusing on the U.S. post 1980's stance that I grew up in). Calmer now, I hope you don't mind me asking a question.

My first question is, how do we define race? The way you state it is as almost something static, unchanging, and with strong boundaries. But as I've learned it (both, in life and in studying race in general) is that it's flexible, changing in definition by different people, times, and circumstance. The trouble that I have with your view is that it is very much out of my life. My racial definition was a choice in identity and something that has never been an either/or issue. So to see a scheme based on race as static is hard for me to understand.

With luv,

BD

[kamenraider]

I wasn't too impressed by Marcus Martins' paper HERE. He ignores evidence that doesn't fit his view, and even quotes passages that he says he was led to write (the implication being that they are more than just his opinion). I would expect the book to be similar.

The way I see it, the priesthood ban pertained to lineage rather than race or skin color. Since I don't believe in a global flood, I'm suspicious about the idea of all African blacks having intermarried with desendants of Ham/Canaan, though I'm sure many did. Cain and his family may have found their way to Africa as well, before Ham's descendants did. I think that the best that could be done then was to deny the priesthood to all black Africans, since the descendants of Ham and the inhabitants of Africa, who they intermarried with, were both black and hard to tell apart.

[Theologian]

How did the Church determine if someone was black or not:

I canâ??t speak for the Church, but will comment on my own experience as I served a mission in a time and place where on occasion we faced this issued. We asked the person about their linage and prayed about who should receive the priesthood. (I remember once when a stupor of thought held things up. Finally a relative of the brother in question arrived making it easy to understand the stupor of thought.)

The subject of why blacks (people of African descent) couldnâ??t hold the priesthood came up when I was in the SLC mission homeâ??back when we were able to ask questions of General Authorities. The official answer of the Church was â??we donâ??t know why.â? To this day I still donâ??t think we know why. (Abraham 1:27 doesnâ??t give the â??why.â?)

It is, however, the private opinion of many (including those General Authorities Iâ??ve heard discuss the issue) that those who couldnâ??t receive the priesthood had failed to make a necessary covenant in the premortal existence. (The ideas that those not able to receive the priesthood originally endorsed Satanâ??s plan and then â??switched sidesâ? and/or were "fence sitters" were general discredited by both General Authorities and Church scholars.)

It was generally taught that the descendants of Cain would not receive the priesthood until all those who would have come through Able had the opportunity to receive a mortal body. (The way multiple ancestry works I personally have no trouble accepting that those who would have come through Able now have the chance to gain a mortal body.) Be that as it may, we still donâ??t know the â??whyâ? about this issue. (Perhaps thatâ??s for the best. I for one wouldnâ??t want the Lord discussing my private affairs and/or sins with all mankind!)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bro Martins gave what I consider the most thoughtful and careful presentation on the subject of blacks and the priesthood.

http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/mart...rs/AllAlike.htm

My personal view is that the ban was instituted and lifted by God himself. Why was it there to begin with? Ill ask Him if I make it back, assuming I still have an interest in the subject.

Thanks for the link, Her.

[auteur55]

Coming to grips with the priesthood ban is one of those "take your pick" trouble spots. The theories as to why are numerous and a few make a bit of sense.

You can argue that the covenant with Abraham was that his seed was to have the Priesthood first.

You can argue that Brigham Young introduced the doctrine where as Joseph may not have. He seemed to be much more prepared and liberal on the subject than Brigham turned out to be.

Me personally. I think everything has it's proper time and place. I don't believe this had anything to do with race but with the members themselves. We stunt our own growth and progression and are given blessings and revealed truths only when we are prepared. The saints were finally prepared to cast off the years of racial thinking and open their hearts.

It was a great day for the church and the world to begin giving equality to all God's children.

[rocmonkey]

Why would a never changing, always the same God 'change' his mind (doctrine) then? If he said one drop of black blood will "always" be death on the spot, what does that say about someone with 100% black blood in them? The Bom says God speaks plainly as to little children so I don't believe there is a 'we don't know why' that was taught. And, since 'All' of the white folks haven't received Christ yet or had a chance to, no black will be allowed to, according to Mormon doctrine- which are the Mormon god's words. Am I missing something?

I do know that many colleges refused to play some sports with BYU in the mid to late 70's because of what Mormon doctrine taught about blacks. And then, Lo and behold, the Bom- God's most correct book on earth- was changed a year or so after that when it all hit the major newspapers. WOW! Is the LDS god's mind that easily swayed to change his doctrines that he has said would never change? Does God care about popular opinion (I know the one in the Bible doesn't)? Makes me wonder about 1 Ne.9:6, Abr.3:17 and then DC 3:1-3. How about you? Can anyone really justify those two sets of verses without thinking either the LDS god or men (LDS leaders) are lying? Someone certainly is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why would a never changing, always the same God 'change' his mind (doctrine) then? If he said one drop of black blood will "always" be death on the spot, what does that say about someone with 100% black blood in them? The Bom says God speaks plainly as to little children so I don't believe there is a 'we don't know why' that was taught. And, since 'All' of the white folks haven't received Christ yet or had a chance to, no black will be allowed to, according to Mormon doctrine- which are the Mormon god's words. Am I missing something?

I do know that many colleges refused to play some sports with BYU in the mid to late 70's. And, Lo and behold, the Bom- God's most correct book on earth- was changed a year or so after it all hit the major newspapers. WOW! Is the LDS god's mind that easily swayed to change his doctrines that he has said would never change? Does God care about popular opinion (I know the one in the Bible doesn't)? Makes me wonder about 1 Ne.9:6, Abr.3:17 and then DC 3:1-3. How about you? Can anyone really justify those two sets of verses without thinking either the LDS god is lying or men (LDS leaders) are? Someone certainly is.

What does "most correct book" mean to you?

[Marmonboy]

BTW, it wasn't the mid to late 70s when the whole "Let's not play BYU" thing started--it was before I even got to BYU in 1972. Back in the late 60s, I think, when UA and ASU in what preceded the old Western Athletic Conference bolted to the PAC so they wouldn't have to play BYU anymore, is when it started.

[BlueDreams]

Lifeonaplate/others

The link Her Anum gave is also pretty similar to the book...at least many of the topics are the same.

With luv,

BD

[California]

Does anyone know anything about this book or the author. I just got an advertisement for from LDS Living. I did a search on Marcus H. Martins and found out that he is from Brazil. That sounds promising.

I just read parts of it, and it is very interesting, and very good. A definite must-have, but he doesn't address racial comments of past leadership at all, except in saying that those comments were not doctrinal. I was warmed by his ideas and testimony. He is Brazilian, and it is very well-written. I think he teaches a BYU or something like that and he's been a bishop twice.

Really good. I say get it. It's part of a series of books that deals with hard questions,.

Why would a never changing, always the same God 'change' his mind (doctrine) then? If he said one drop of black blood will "always" be death on the spot, what does that say about someone with 100% black blood in them? The Bom says God speaks plainly as to little children so I don't believe there is a 'we don't know why' that was taught. And, since 'All' of the white folks haven't received Christ yet or had a chance to, no black will be allowed to, according to Mormon doctrine- which are the Mormon god's words. Am I missing something?

I do know that many colleges refused to play some sports with BYU in the mid to late 70's. And, Lo and behold, the Bom- God's most correct book on earth- was changed a year or so after it all hit the major newspapers. WOW! Is the LDS god's mind that easily swayed to change his doctrines that he has said would never change? Does God care about popular opinion (I know the one in the Bible doesn't)? Makes me wonder about 1 Ne.9:6, Abr.3:17 and then DC 3:1-3. How about you? Can anyone really justify those two sets of verses without thinking either the LDS god is lying or men (LDS leaders) are? Someone certainly is.

God gives us what he CAN, he never changes, but we do. If he didn't give blacks the priesthood I am conviced it was because the white world was too racist to accept it.

[AKS]

God gives us what he CAN, he never changes, but we do. If he didn't give blacks the priesthood I am conviced it was because the white world was too racist to accept it.

Thats an interesting opinion. God denied blessings to an entire race of people because the white people were too racist to accept it.

[BlueDreams]

do know that many colleges refused to play some sports with BYU in the mid to late 70's. And, Lo and behold, the Bom- God's most correct book on earth- was changed a year or so after it all hit the major newspapers.

Yeah....like it had in the past. It's been changed three times. And it isn't the only words that has changed over the years my freshman religion class went over a . Luckily we don't believe the book is perfect.

With luv,

BD

[jadams_4242]

I just read parts of it, and it is very interesting, and very good. A definite must-have, but he doesn't address racial comments of past leadership at all, except in saying that those comments were not doctrinal. I was warmed by his ideas and testimony. He is Brazilian, and it is very well-written. I think he teaches a BYU or something like that and he's been a bishop twice.

Really good. I say get it. It's part of a series of books that deals with hard questions,.

God gives us what he CAN, he never changes, but we do. If he didn't give blacks the priesthood I am conviced it was because the white world was too racist to accept it.

i really wouldnt beleive he would do it for that reason? Why would he put the heavy burden on so many

blacks just to passify whites? I would tend to think more in the line of something as ,he did it

for somekind of "mark" or test, or punishment of some kind, having to do with premortal excistence.

[auteur55]

he did it

for somekind of "mark" or test, or punishment of some kind, having to do with premortal excistence.

Well the dude who writes the Chick pamphlets would certainly like your response.

[koakaipo]

The pre-existence justification for the ban was not introduced along Brigham Young's assertions to the ban. In fact, Brigham Young outright rejected that blacks were being cursed for something they did in the pre-existence:

------------------------------------------------------------

When asked "if the spirits of negroes were neutral in Heaven," he answered, "No, they were not, there were no neutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the rebellion all took sides...Al spirits are pure that came from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he commited murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon their ancestry. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles."(Neither White Nor Black, p. 73)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Brigham Young was very explicit about his justification-that he believed, like many other of his day, that blacks were of the lineage of Cain and that lineage was to be denied the priesthood. Race was interchanged like that 150 years back. This Cain association with blacks also predates BY by sev eral hundred years, so this did not start with Brigham Young. In many ways it's part of the religious heritage that was brought into Mormonism and given a Mormon twist. Nowadays however, we tend to have very different views on race and lineage.

"

[Severian]

Why would a never changing, always the same God 'change' his mind (doctrine) then? If he said one drop of black blood will "always" be death on the spot, what does that say about someone with 100% black blood in them? The BoM says God speaks plainly as to little children so I don't believe there is a 'we don't know why' that was taught. And, since 'All' of the white folks haven't received Christ yet or had a chance to, no black will be allowed to, according to Mormon doctrine- which are the Mormon god's words. Am I missing something?

Missing this perhaps: Somebody made the whole curse thing up. President Spencer W, Kimball, set the who thing right again. President Hinckley explained the whole snafu when he said racism was borne out of arrogance.

[Hammer]

If logic is your friend, you need to hang with a different crowd...

Why? As I understand the pre-existence, we gained bodies or were cast out according to how we kept our first estate or didn't.

How well we kept it could also be a factor in why the Lord had a 'chosen' people. Maybe the Jews during the PE were much more valiant and actual leaders in the battle against the discenting 1/3.

I don't see how anyone can be blind to the implications here. Most would rather call God a prejudicial being, or a bigot. But He knows why He has blessed some and cursed others.

[Doctor Steuss]

Why would a never changing, always the same God 'change' his mind (doctrine) then?

Does your G-d still consider circumcision to be an everlasting covenant?

I would hate to think that a "never changing, always the same G[-]d" would change His mind on such a thing.

Have you actually researched this topic, or are you opining the same way you have on other Mormon subjects? Are you familiar with the research of Darius Gray? Marvin Perkins? The writings of Margaret Blair Young? How about Armand Mauss? Alexander B. Morrison?

I hope the â??researchâ? you have done on this topic (like that of all of the other topics you opine on) has included at least a precursory reading of the above authors and at least a general knowledge of the history and current thoughts regarding this practice.

Or are you just looking for any possible stone to cast?

[Doctor Steuss]

And then, Lo and behold, the Bom- God's most correct book on earth- was changed a year or so after that when it all hit the major newspapers.

Care to enlighten us on who made the changes, and why the changes were made to the Book of Mormon? Care to give us a brief overview of Skousen's critical text project (I haven't had time to delve into it yet, but surely you have)? You have done all of the "research" (according to you) to obtain the truth, so perhaps you could enlighten us as to what this research shows and how it demonstrates that "the Mormon G-d" is changing His mind(?)

[Doctor Steuss]

Does anyone know anything about this book or the author. I just got an advertisement for from LDS Living. I did a search on Marcus H. Martins and found out that he is from Brazil. That sounds promising.

I believe he gave a FAIR presentation once.

Edit:

Yeppers, 2006 -- A Black Man In Zion

[jadams_4242]

Care to enlighten us on who made the changes, and why the changes were made to the Book of Mormon? Care to give us a brief overview of Skousen's critical text project (I haven't had time to delve into it yet, but surely you have)? You have done all of the "research" (according to you) to obtain the truth, so perhaps you could enlighten us as to what this research shows and how it demonstrates that "the Mormon G-d" is changing His mind(?)

I second that!

[rocmonkey]

Does your G-d still consider circumcision to be an everlasting covenant?

I would hate to think that a "never changing, always the same G[-]d" would change His mind on such a thing.

Have you actually researched this topic, or are you opining the same way you have on other Mormon subjects? Are you familiar with the research of Darius Gray? Marvin Perkins? The writings of Margaret Blair Young? How about Armand Mauss? Alexander B. Morrison?

I hope the â??researchâ? you have done on this topic (like that of all of the other topics you opine on) has included at least a precursory reading of the above authors and at least a general knowledge of the history and current thoughts regarding this practice.

Or are you just looking for any possible stone to cast?

Circumcision- you bet. He gave it to the Jews and now most of the world has gotten on board with it. Its even proven better, albeit painful, from a medical standpoint.

I have read a lot of what the LDS church taught. I take LDS leaders as JS said he took God- to mean what he said and say what he meant. I don't need 'others' to tell me what I have read for myself. If they ever said it was from God, who never changes and is always the same because he knows the end before the beginning, then its doctrine and doctrines don't change. Why would any sane person go against their god and his prophets? Well, they are trying to justify or make excuses for his and their behavior, words and doctrines. If God ever changes he ceases to be God (Mormon 9:19). Therefore, his doctrines are always and forever the same.

No, I'm not throwing stones because I can. I say the things I do because the LDS religion claims these things but then they want to change their god-mandated doctrines and try to look more mainstream Christian. Mormonism is changing to look like us instead of us accepting it like the leaders said. Which is that we will accept JS as a prophet and look upon him as a God and, therefore, accept all he taught as from God. Historic Christianity isn't changing Mormonism is.

I say these things to help the LDS people see the truth of their history and original doctrines so they can find the real Jesus and have a personal relationship with Him. And so they aren't confused with all of the changing doctrines the church keeps making because Christianity never changes its doctrines.

I have given evidence for everything I have said- book, page and verse- and no one has shown what I quoted was not taught as doctrine of the LDS church.

Mola Ram Suda Ram said- What does "most correct book" mean to you?<<<<

It means that it is the most accurate book from God on earth. It must therefore be more accurate (correct) than the Bible which is more than 20 times older. How is it that the Bible cannot be found to have ever changed but this book has many times in relation to doctrines? Baptism for the dead (B4D) and the nature of God (Spirit-Al. 18:26) are just two examples.

[Doctor Steuss]

Circumcision- you bet. He gave it to the Jews and now most of the world has gotten on board with it. Its even proven better, albeit painful, from a medical standpoint.

You might want to talk to Paul then, as he didnâ??t seem to think it was still an everlasting covenant (he must surely be teaching a different gospel, and therefore all of his epistles should be ignoredâ?¦ or as you say â??If one thing is wrong, it must all be wrong.â? [or is there yet another double standard when it comes to the Bible?]).

I have read a lot of what the LDS church taught. I take LDS leaders as JS said he took God- to mean what he said and say what he meant. I don't need 'others' to tell me what I have read for myself.

Well, at least you have no shortage of pride.

Usually when people do â??research,â? they actually seek out the viewpoints of others instead of allowing their egocentric pride to govern their process. This does however explain why LDS telling you what they believe doesnâ??t hold as much water as what you have decided a priori that they believe.

[rocmonkey]

Yeah....like it had in the past. It's been changed three times. And it isn't the only words that has changed over the years my freshman religion class went over a . Luckily we don't believe the book is perfect.

With luv,

BD

Are you saying then that God knowingly, willingly deceives (lies) His people only to change His mind later with the real truth? How can that kind of God ever be trusted to be telling the truth, All-knowing, perfect, never lie or loving? If we did that to our families it would destroy us, them and everything around us.

I would never serve a God that does that. In fact, he wouldn't be God at all if he did that because he said he knows everything before anything (1 Ne.9:6) and that he never changes or he ceases to be God (Mormon 9:19).

Why do you still serve him?