The Great Church History Cover-up

[thews]

I would comment, but I have a penchant for being 100% wrong.

I agree. If you had a retort to make, you would have, but you don't, so you didn't because you were wrong, and this tap dance is supposed to imply you could have, but you chose not to. If you have a point to make why not make it?

As Thews has established the date (after considerable research, as the previous date he was utilizing was 1840) as the inauguration of the Mormon church not allowing any blacks to have the priesthood because of melanin concentration, I'm sure he can help you out.

PS.

No.

Would you answer one simple question as I believe you're again attempting to paint a picture that simply is not true. Regardless of when the ban took place, do you deny the Mormon church, until 1978, denied black men the right to hold the Mormon priesthood? (this is a yes or no question)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does it matter than the Mormon started banning blacks from holding the priesthood in 1842 vs. 1843? What is your point? Are you attempting to deny the Mormon church denied black people the priesthood based on their skin color? Is that your point?

Yes I do know what the ban was for, and the ban was to deny black men the right to hold the Mormon priesthood based on their skin color. This was overturned in 1978... do you deny this? Please comment on the quotes by Brigham Young, before answering my questions with questions.

I deny that it was for blackmen as it had been pointed out at least 5 times now that other black people held the preisthood. It was for people who had cannaite blood in their veins. Even BY stated that if it could be proven that some one had one drop of cannanite blood they could not hold the preisthood. It wasn't even a mention of the color of a mans skin. ANy way this is pointless.

WHy do you hold the mormons to a different standard than you do the ancient Isrealites?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Would you answer one simple question as I believe you're again attempting to paint a picture that simply is not true. Regardless of when the ban took place, do you deny the Mormon church, until 1978, denied black men the right to hold the Mormon priesthood? (this is a yes or no question)

This is a false statement as again I note that it has been shown that there were black men held the preisthood before 1978.

If you want to be accurate you could say africans (in all of there froms) were denied the preisthood.

All I have to say is "so what". what does that prove? What is your point?

[Doctor Steuss]

I agree. If you had a retort to make, you would have, but you don't, so you didn't because you were wrong, and this tap dance is supposed to imply you could have, but you chose not to. If you have a point to make why not make it?

My point is I like to eat ice cream sometimes. But not so much in the winter time.

Oh, while it

[kmcarmo]

When I was a Catholic I was never taught about the sordid history of the church during the Middle Ages. I.e. the Borgias, three different Popes at once, the Crusades. But to say that the Catholic church "suppresses" this information because they dont teach it in Cathecism or because priests dont expound on them during sermons would be ridiculous. It always makes me amused when fundies bring these topics up because they have more than a few skeletons in their own closets.

[thews]

My point is I like to eat ice cream sometimes. But not so much in the winter time.

Oh, while it

[thews]

This is a false statement as again I note that it has been shown that there were black men held the preisthood before 1978.

If you want to be accurate you could say africans (in all of there froms) were denied the preisthood.

You obviously think changing the context of the question somehow makes your point valid. I don't care if a few select people were given the chance to hold the Mormon priesthood. The point is that Mormon doctrine prohibited black men from holding the prieshood based ont he color of their skin, and missionaries were taught not to attempt to preach the word to people who had a defined color line on the palm of their hands. I quoted Brighmam young and you failed to reply. Why? Was he speaking as a man and not a prophet?

All I have to say is "so what". what does that prove? What is your point?

Ok. If you think it's a "so what" thing why lobby so hard to attempt to hide it (se OP)? What it proves is Mormon doctrine changed in 1978. What iot proves is that per mormon doctrine, God punishes people by the curse of black skin... that's what it proves, and that's why it had to change, because times changed. You aren't really doing anything by attempting to deny the history... except to try brush it under the rug and move on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You obviously think changing the context of the question somehow makes your point valid. I don't care if a few select people were given the chance to hold the Mormon priesthood. The point is that Mormon doctrine prohibited black men from holding the prieshood based ont he color of their skin, and missionaries were taught not to attempt to preach the word to people who had a defined color line on the palm of their hands. I quoted Brighmam young and you failed to reply. Why? Was he speaking as a man and not a prophet?

Ok. If you think it's a "so what" thing why lobby so hard to attempt to hide it (se OP)? What it proves is Mormon doctrine changed in 1978. What iot proves is that per mormon doctrine, God punishes people by the curse of black skin... that's what it proves, and that's why it had to change, because times changed. You aren't really doing anything by attempting to deny the history... except to try brush it under the rug and move on.

See THews the problem is that not all black people were limited. SOme were and some were not. THat is the issue I have. And for the record who is hiding it? Why did God "punish" (your words) the rest of Isreal in not being able to hold the preisthood, Why is it that only the Levites that could hold it.

I have not once denied that some black people were denied the preisthood. All even go so far as to say that most black people were denied the preisthood. But I reject that any one is hiding it. THat is what is silly. It is in our scripture that the ban was lifted. It is common knowledge.

I will say this again.

"All I have to say is "so what". what does that prove? What is your point?

Were is the revelation that BY gave that said that blacks couldn't hold the preisthood.

All I have seen is if the person has cannanite blood in them they couldn't hold the preisthood. THat means the person could be white or yellow or blue.

[Zakuska]

All I have seen is if the person has cannanite blood in them they couldn't hold the preisthood. THat means the person could be white or yellow or blue.

They could even be Greek.

Math 15

21

[thews]

See THews the problem is that not all black people were limited. SOme were and some were not.

What does this mean? That the Mormon church wasn't racist because some blacks weren't descriminated again? ..that's your logic.

THat is the issue I have. And for the record who is hiding it? Why did God "punish" (your words) the rest of Isreal in not being able to hold the preisthood, Why is it that only the Levites that could hold it.

Yet another diversion away from the topic. The Mormon church discriminated against people of color, and in 1978 they changed the doctrine. /end of point

I have not once denied that some black people were denied the preisthood. All even go so far as to say that most black people were denied the preisthood. But I reject that any one is hiding it. THat is what is silly. It is in our scripture that the ban was lifted. It is common knowledge.

I will say this again.

"All I have to say is "so what". what does that prove? What is your point?

My point, is that your point is, "so what."

Were is the revelation that BY gave that said that blacks couldn't hold the preisthood.

All I have seen is if the person has cannanite blood in them they couldn't hold the preisthood. THat means the person could be white or yellow or blue.

I have asked you to comment of the comments I posted by Brigham Young now at least three times. If you don't wish to respond, please stop these new color analogies to paint the new diversion. Please respond directly to what Brigham Young, a Mormon prophet, said as I have quoted him.

Thanks

[thews]

They could even be Greek.

Math 15

21

[Zakuska]

What is your point? Mormon doctrine is/(was until 1978) racist so all Christian denominations are racist too? Please name another Christian denomination that prevented people of color from holding the priesthood based on their skin color?

Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists.

1841: Baptists Argue that Slavery is Biblical

Southern delegates to the Triennial Convention of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Board

[thews]

Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists.

1841: Baptists Argue that Slavery is Biblical

Southern delegates to the Triennial Convention of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Board

[ttribe]

The civil war argument and the priesthood are not the same thing.

Link We were definitely later than most.... BTW, been to the U.S. South lately...served my mission in Tennessee and Kentucky 91-93 and many, many churches are still segregated there. It's strange.

[Zakuska]

The civil war argument and the priesthood are not the same thing.

Says you.

Do you really think these Southern Churchs who were Slave holders aloud their slaves to preach to them?

Mormons on the other hand were Anti-Slavery. That is why three "Chistian" army officers (One methodist, One Presbyterian, One Baptist) marched Mormons out of Missouri and Illinous at gun point in the debt of winter. Bare foot.

[thews]

Says you.

Do you really think these Southern Churchs who were Slave holders aloud their slaves to preach to them?

Mormons on the other hand were Anti-Slavery. That is why three "Chistian" army officers (One methodist, One Presbyterian, One Baptist) marched Mormons out of Missouri and Illinous at gun point in the debt of winter. Bare foot.

Wow... I must be all wrong then.. the Mormon church is so anti racist isn't it? What point are you making? What part of doctrine changing in 1978 to allow (ALLOW) a person with dark skin to hold the priesthood? These two-wrong-make-a-right diversions are now being augmented with one-of stories of how cool the mormon were to slaves. What is your point? If your point is the Mormon church has never withheld the priesthood from people with dark skin, then just say it... you can't because you'd be wrong. This argument showing "sometimes" the Mormon church wasn't racist doesn't negate the doctrine. How many black people are in your ward? Seriously ...your argument is so weak only the high fivers buy into it. Why not comment on Brigham Young's comments and past mormon leaders. What do you think of them? Like these...

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race (Negro) from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham--"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"--the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood--that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians--these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book.

- Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128

The Book of Abraham says (1:26-27 and 1:20-22 ) that descendants of Ham cannot hold any priesthood, and that all Egyptians are descended from Ham. Until 1978 this was interpreted to ban anyone with even a single "drop" of Hamitic (Negro) blood. Most Mormons claim that they are descended from Ephraim or Manasseh, sons of Joseph, based on their individual patriarchal blessings. Since the mother of those two sons was Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest at On (Genesis 41:45, 50), who was undoubtedly Egyptian, it would appear then that no such Mormon was entitled to hold the priesthood (until 1978 at least, when the church chose to disregard this passage of scripture).

Brigham Young states that slavery is a divine institution:

"Ham will continue to be servant of servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. WILL THE PRESENT STRUGGLE FREE THE SLAVE? NO; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands.... "Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for HAM MUST BE THE SERVANT OF SERVANTS UNTIL THE CURSE IS REMOVED. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? YOU CANNOT. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. THEY CANNOT DO THAT, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands."

(Millennial Star, Vol. 25, page 787; also published in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 250)

1947 the First Presidency (supreme council) of the Church issued an Official Statement:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"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 pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.....

"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."

Please be specific when you address the above.

[sunstoned]

Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists.

1841: Baptists Argue that Slavery is Biblical

Southern delegates to the Triennial Convention of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Board

[Zakuska]

Wow... I must be all wrong then.. the Mormon church is so anti racist isn't it? What point are you making? What part of doctrine changing in 1978 to allow (ALLOW) a person with dark skin to hold the priesthood?

A few corrections first

1) You keep talking about "People with dark skin" It wasn't people "with Dark Skin" and never was. It was people with Cananite Blood. Capisce Boss?

2) No part of "Doctrine" Changed. It was always in Gods plan to, in the end extend the Priesthood to them. See below.

These two-wrong-make-a-right diversions are now being augmented with one-of stories of how cool the mormon were to slaves.

Who is saying two wrongs make a right? Certianly not us. It is amusing though that you give Jesus a free pass.

What is your point? If your point is the Mormon church has never withheld the priesthood from people with dark skin, then just say it...

Aaaaa...... Didn't Mola just say that the ban was lifted in our canonized scripture. So why on earth would you jump to such a pin headed conclusion as that?!

you can't because you'd be wrong.

Well duh?! Anyone with even a cursory review of Mormon History would know better than to jump to that conclusion.

This argument showing "sometimes" the Mormon church wasn't racist doesn't negate the doctrine. How many black people are in your ward?

Wel lets see... We have 1 mixed family. Father is white Mother is African American. She was divorced, so the older kids are African American. The younger kids they had together are Molata (Thats the Brazilian word for mixed white/black) My wife is Brazilian. So we have a mixed family. We have about 5 Samoan families, 3 Mexican Families. A lot of old white folks. So we have quite a few "black People" in our ward.

Lds wards have never been segregated, unlike the Baptists churches of the south which some are still segregated to this day. We do however on occasion have wards that are segregated by Language so the people who attend those wards can study the gospel and worship in their native tongues.

Seriously ...your argument is so weak only the high fivers buy into it. Why not comment on Brigham Young's comments and past mormon leaders. What do you think of them? Like these...-

Alas the irony is wasted.

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

Please be specific when you address the above.

"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race (Negro) from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham--"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"--the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood--that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians--these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book.

- Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128

The Book of Abraham says (1:26-27 and 1:20-22 ) that descendants of Ham cannot hold any priesthood, and that all Egyptians are descended from Ham. Until 1978 this was interpreted to ban anyone with even a single "drop" of Hamitic (Negro) blood. Most Mormons claim that they are descended from Ephraim or Manasseh, sons of Joseph, based on their individual patriarchal blessings. Since the mother of those two sons was Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest at On (Genesis 41:45, 50), who was undoubtedly Egyptian, it would appear then that no such Mormon was entitled to hold the priesthood (until 1978 at least, when the church chose to disregard this passage of scripture).

Brigham Young states that slavery is a divine institution:

"Ham will continue to be servant of servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. WILL THE PRESENT STRUGGLE FREE THE SLAVE? NO; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands.... "Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for HAM MUST BE THE SERVANT OF SERVANTS UNTIL THE CURSE IS REMOVED. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? YOU CANNOT. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. THEY CANNOT DO THAT, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands."

(Millennial Star, Vol. 25, page 787; also published in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 250)

1947 the First Presidency (supreme council) of the Church issued an Official Statement:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

This Quote needs more Context to be Understood. I beleive it does mention the Curse being removed though.

In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"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 pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.....

The Ellipses here are a major red flag that the Author is removing context which could explain further what is ment.

"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."

These are really quite easy to understand Thews. You need to pay attention to what Ive marked in red though.

If you notice Brigham Young points to the KEY to understanding this whole thing. The Key is hidden in plain sight in five little words.

"until the curse is removed."

In 1978 God through his living prophet... "removed the Curse." Thus we read in Delcaration #2.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A few corrections first

I was about to respond to Thews but you did such a good job I don't need to.

[tsubotsubo]

I really like this article on fairwiki: http://en.fairmormon.org/Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history/Hiding_the_facts

And, if anybody has anymore places where the church has "hidden" things, I'm sure the people at fairwiki would love to add it to that article.

Polygamy is talked about a lot in my ward. Everybody knows about it. Infact, Joseph Smith marrying 14 year-old girls was even discussed in a seminary lesson, and someone mentioned the different acounts of Joseph Smith's first vision in their testimony once. Most people in my ward are also well aware about Joseph Smith and gold-digging, and now, thanks to General Conference, they also now know about Solomon Spaulding, and other BoM authorship theories. And other people know other little snippets here and there.

Not one person has left the church yet, after all of this.

Anti-mormons are destroying themselves in my opinion. This does seem a bit strange to say, however, in my experience, the first thing they like to tell people about our religion is that Joseph Smith had sex with other people's wives, and that he was a paedophile. Obviously, they don't seem to realize that the danger in doing this is that, once a mormon finds out about this, and gets over it, it's unlikely that anything else will ever effect them as much. Discovering that Joseph Smith drank alcohol in carthage, or that he said men live on the moon is nothing, after what they've heard previously.

People are nowadays, going to church, and telling their fellow members about things that they've found on the Internet. The most shocking bits should be used as a last resort, if they want the most chances at leading people astray.

Not that I'm complaining, of course.

[thews]

I was about to respond to Thews but you did such a good job I don't need to.

All he said is the same things you do.. a story here and a few select black people held the priesthood, and wala! no racism... see? If you actually had a point to make, why not address the quoted material by Brigham Young and the other Mormon leaders I posted regarding race and the priesthood? You can't... you'll still stick to the one or two stories that somehow absolve the 150+ years of Mormons denying the priesthood to people of color.

[Zakuska]

I was about to respond to Thews but you did such a good job I don't need to.

Alas... as you can see from his last post... It went right over his head... again.

[thews]

Alas... as you can see from his last post... It went right over his head... again.

Your back and forth highfive prove nothing. Instead of attempting to show us what wasn't, why not address what was:

FACT: The Mormon church overtune its racist policy in 1978 ALLOWING blacks men to hold the priesthood. (I really don't care to hear select examples of shads of color that found exceptions).

what you've failed to acknowledge with your onesy twosey stories attempting to paint the picture you wish were true:

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

Some members question whether the ban was actual doctrine or just Church policy. The First Presidency issued the following official statements signed by all three members. (emphasis added):

1947 the First Presidency (supreme council) of the Church issued an Official Statement:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"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 pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.....

"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."

Doctrine supported by LDS Scriptures.

2 Nephi 5: 21

'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

Alma 3: 6

'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

2 Nephi 30: 6

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

NOTE: THE TERM 'WHITE' WAS CHANGED TO 'PURE' IN 1981.

3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

Moses 7:22

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1:21-24,27

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Brigham Young

"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." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, 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; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. - (Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, October 9, 1859)

"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:336).

It is not the prerogative of the President of the United States to meddle with this matter, and Congress is not allowed, according to the [p.40] Constitution, to legislate upon it. If Utah was admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it. Journal of Discourses 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)

Care to actually attempt to make a point by addressing what's posted instead of the ruse you're attempting paint?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All he said is the same things you do.. a story here and a few select black people held the priesthood, and wala! no racism... see? If you actually had a point to make, why not address the quoted material by Brigham Young and the other Mormon leaders I posted regarding race and the priesthood? You can't... you'll still stick to the one or two stories that somehow absolve the 150+ years of Mormons denying the priesthood to people of color.

Oh boy, I guess I will just pull a Thews on you. If you had actually had a point to make you would respond to what we are saying. All you keep saying is "Look at the BY quote I supplied". We have and we did respond. That fact that you don't acknowledge it is quite telling. BY fortold that the curse would be removed.

Oh I know I pull another thews. I am not talking about the blacks being denied the priesthood I am talkin about everybody but the Levite being denied the Priesthood. Why was God so racist in denying the rest of Isreal the priesthood THews? YOu have never once answered that question. Once you do you might understand our position.

Thews are you really this dense? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt but you just keep quacking like a duck. I don't know one person that has said "That there wasn't a priesthood ban". Why do you keep asserting that? The only problem is is that some of your "facts" are wrong and hve been demonstrated time and time again to be wrong. The main thrust of your argument is that the blacks were denied the priesthood. Not one person in this thread denies that. Strawmen are indeed useful.

If you want to call it racism so be it. Now lets see if you are consistant in your beliefs do you think that God was being "racist" when he forbade the priesthood to rest of Israel?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your back and forth highfive prove nothing. Instead of attempting to show us what wasn't, why not address what was:

FACT: The Mormon church overtune its racist policy in 1978 ALLOWING blacks men to hold the priesthood. (I really don't care to hear select examples of shads of color that found exceptions).

what you've failed to acknowledge with your onesy twosey stories attempting to paint the picture you wish were true:

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

Care to actually attempt to make a point by addressing what's posted instead of the ruse you're attempting paint?

And your endless rants on this prove nothing either THews. You haven't proved anything. You are being foolish Thews.

What do you want me to address in this post?