The Great Church History Cover-up

[Zakuska]

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).

Lets expand on the "FACTS" a bit shall we?

1) God limited the preisthood by BLOOD LINES when he "cursed the house of Canaan from holding the Priesthood" in the days of Abraham.

Abr. 1

20 Behold, Potiphar

[Zakuska]

Continued...

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.)

If you had actually read this one incontext in the original you would actully see where you missed out on what BY was saying. During this time in American history the newspapers back east were circulating and making a big scandal over Thomas Jefferson and others and their affairs they had with their slaves. BY eludes to this just after to making the statement.

Lets read it in the original Ill bold the parts I want to discuss.

The rank, rabid abolitionists, whom I call black-hearted Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire. Do you know this, Democrats? They have kindled the fire that is raging now from the north to the south, and from the south to the north. I am no abolitionist, neither am I a proslavery man; I hate some of their principles and especially some of their conduct, as I do the gates of hell. The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders. and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this. 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. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.

The following saying of the prophet is fulfilled: "Now also many nations page 111 are gathered against thee, that say, let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they his counsel; for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor. Arise and thrash O daughter of Zion, &c." God rules in the armies of Heaven and does his pleasure upon the earth, and no man can help it. Who can stay the hand of Jehovah, or turn aside the providences of the Almighty? I say to all men and all women, submit to God, to his ordinances and to His rule; serve Him, and cease your quarrelling, and stay the shedding of each other's blood.

If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.

I am neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man. If I could have been influenced by private injury to choose one side in preference to the other, I should certainly be against the pro-slavery side of the question, for it was pro-slavery men that pointed the bayonet at me and my brethren in Missouri, and said, "Damn you we will kill you." I have not much love for them, only in the Gospel. I would cause them to repent, if I could, and make them good men and a good community. I have no fellowship for their avarice, blindness, and ungodly actions. To be great, is to be good before the Heavens and before all good men. I will not fellowship the wicked in their sins, so help me God.

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)

BY flat out says the curse woud be removed at some future point. After everyone else had received it. He also likens "some CLASSES" of the human family as "black" which is a biblical metaphor for a fallen cointenance. These wild partying tatoo filled anti-mormon types.

"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).

Nothing about skin color here or banning from the Priesthood to the Indians.

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)

Whats your point with this one? That some Member MIGHT have owned slaves. Its all a suposition, and still doesn't change that fact that these "Slaves" if their were any werent denied the preisthood. Such as Alija Abels (Yes he was a free man) who was a Seventy and went on Missions and Baptized Black people. Unlike the black men in the Episcopalien churchs who werent even allowd to kneel down in prayer at services.

[Zakuska]

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?

Not just the rest of Israel... he denied it to " poluted cursed canaanite dogs". (Ezra 2:62; Matt. 15:21-26)

[thews]

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?

And once again you fail to adress what was posted... feel free to highfive endlessly in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact you fail to address what you have no answer for. The Mormon church changed in 1978, and all you want to attempt to prove is that never happened... it did.

[Zakuska]

And once again you fail to adress what was posted... feel free to highfive endlessly in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact you fail to address what you have no answer for. The Mormon church changed in 1978, and all you want to attempt to prove is that never happened... it did.

That you fail to understand Brigham Youngs words... "Until the curse is lifted" is neither here nor there. Come on thews my seven year old read that and understood it.

And nice straw man you got there since Mola and I have consistany acknowledged that it did happen. Looky there... "Until the curse is lifted" acknowledgedes that there was a priesthhod ban on certian blood lines since the time of Adam which was lifted in 1978. (To quote Britney) OOPS... I did it again.

[thews]

That you fail to understand Brigham Youngs words... "Until the curse is lifted" is neither here nor there. Come on thews my seven year old read that and understood it.

And nice straw man you got there since Mola and I have consistany acknowledged that it did happen. Looky there... "Until the curse is lifted" acknowledgedes that there was a priesthhod ban on certian blood lines since the time of Adam which was lifted in 1978. (To quote Britney) OOPS... I did it again.

I don't fail to understand Brighman Young's words, especially when he says the penalty for mixing seed with a black man is death on the spot, and it will always be so. You exemplify a typical LDS response, along with your pal who highfives you with every response you refuse to acknowledge or answer, throwing out tidbits of data you claim makes a point, but agian fails to address anything that was posted. Your strawman, once exposed, becomes diversion. The Mormon church was racists before 1978, the doctrine changed, and this is a fact.

Things you failed to acknowledge

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."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't fail to understand Brighman Young's words, especially when he says the penalty for mixing seed with a black man is death on the spot, and it will always be so. You exemplify a typical LDS response, along with your pal who highfives you with every response you refuse to acknowledge or answer, throwing out tidbits of data you claim makes a point, but agian fails to address anything that was posted. Your strawman, once exposed, becomes diversion. The Mormon church was racists before 1978, the doctrine changed, and this is a fact.

Things you failed to acknowledge

Yeah I am sure you can find recent historical evidence of "death up mixing seed". Come on give me your best evidence that people are killed today that have interacial kids.

You are being dishonest here. But hey I won't let that keep you from your rant. [High fives Zak.]

Just saying that we failed to acknowledge it is severly dishonest. Zak quoted it back and even highlighted certain parts. No one has denied it no one has not acknowledge or denied what BY taught. For the record you haven't exposed jack crap.

Specifically what is the strawman that Zak brought to the table? I am interested if you even know what a strawman argument is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And once again you fail to adress what was posted... feel free to highfive endlessly in an attempt to divert attention away from the fact you fail to address what you have no answer for. The Mormon church changed in 1978, and all you want to attempt to prove is that never happened... it did.

My name is thews and I like to plug my ears with my fingers and yell "Lalalalalalalalalalala". Sorry Thews but you have been answered with responses that are adaquet. We just aren't playing your lame smear game. It would seem that God limited the preisthood through out the bible. Was God being "racist" then? You have failed to respond to this question every time I have asked it. THis is the 4th time. I hope I get an answer.

[Zakuska]

I don't fail to understand Brighman Young's words, especially when he says the penalty for mixing seed with a black man is death on the spot, and it will always be so.

Lets take a look at what BY is refering to.

When Moses and the children of Israel left Egypt they passed through the lands of many different tribes of people. God instructed them that they should not join themselves with them and not to Marry into their tribes. They where to remain clean and not pollute themselves. At one stop along the way... some of the men took women of the Midianites and commited Adultury with them in their tents. A Priest of God named Phinehas took a javelin and slew them where they stood, or layed as the case was.

Num 25

6

[Catherine Aurelia]

Interestingly, when a missionary out of Salt Lake called me on the phone (I forget what it was about, but he asked if I had any questions), I asked him about the King Follett Discourse and the teaching that men can be exalted to godhood and that the God worshipped by the LDS had once been a man himself. He basically was extrememly evasive, and said he didn't have a clue what the King Follett Discourse was. It seems to me that a Mormon missionary should be informed, at least about that sermon by Smith. Was this a cover-up, or aren't the missionaries aware of Smith's original teachings?

[Redefined]

Interestingly, when a missionary out of Salt Lake called me on the phone (I forget what it was about, but he asked if I had any questions), I asked him about the King Follett Discourse and the teaching that men can be exalted to godhood and that the God worshipped by the LDS had once been a man himself. He basically was extrememly evasive, and said he didn't have a clue what the King Follett Discourse was. It seems to me that a Mormon missionary should be informed, at least about that sermon by Smith. Was this a cover-up, or aren't the missionaries aware of Smith's original teachings?

Well if it is something they had never heard before and the leaders haven't mentioned it, then it must be lie made to thwart the church, otherwise it there must be some rationalization for it. That was my thinking when I was Mormon.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interestingly, when a missionary out of Salt Lake called me on the phone (I forget what it was about, but he asked if I had any questions), I asked him about the King Follett Discourse and the teaching that men can be exalted to godhood and that the God worshipped by the LDS had once been a man himself. He basically was extrememly evasive, and said he didn't have a clue what the King Follett Discourse was. It seems to me that a Mormon missionary should be informed, at least about that sermon by Smith. Was this a cover-up, or aren't the missionaries aware of Smith's original teachings?

Yeah it was a cover up. You know one of the doctrines of the church is that men can become gods. Just because the missionary didn't know what the KFD was didn't mean he didn't know hte doctrines associated with it. The church sure does fail an awful lot in cover up its history. I believe the KFD was talked about in teh JS manual. Doh!

[why me]

Interestingly, when a missionary out of Salt Lake called me on the phone (I forget what it was about, but he asked if I had any questions), I asked him about the King Follett Discourse and the teaching that men can be exalted to godhood and that the God worshipped by the LDS had once been a man himself. He basically was extrememly evasive, and said he didn't have a clue what the King Follett Discourse was. It seems to me that a Mormon missionary should be informed, at least about that sermon by Smith. Was this a cover-up, or aren't the missionaries aware of Smith's original teachings?

The idea that god was once a man is in the current priesthood/relief society manual. The missionaries might not know about the king follet sermons. But then again, most 19 year olds do not know very much about anything these days. It is just the sign of the times.

[why me]

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

The quotations go back to the 1840's. The Civl War began in 1861.

[thews]

The quotations go back to the 1840's. The Civl War began in 1861.

Well this is the last time I'm going to respond the subject of denying black the priesthood. Per your point, the argument of slavery is different than doctrine denying blacks the priesthood based on skin color. The point of this thread was to show what was supposedly being covered up, and if one cares to read all the attempted ways this topic is being downplayed, and the fact that the decision was overtuned in 1978 would also have to be denied. I posted a lot of data that hasn't been addressed, and I really don't get how denial of the facts is going to change anything. What i would expect is to just acknowedge the truth and move on, but that's just me.

[tsubotsubo]

Interestingly, when a missionary out of Salt Lake called me on the phone (I forget what it was about, but he asked if I had any questions), I asked him about the King Follett Discourse and the teaching that men can be exalted to godhood and that the God worshipped by the LDS had once been a man himself. He basically was extrememly evasive, and said he didn't have a clue what the King Follett Discourse was. It seems to me that a Mormon missionary should be informed, at least about that sermon by Smith. Was this a cover-up, or aren't the missionaries aware of Smith's original teachings?

Well, pretty much everybody in my ward knows about the teachings of the King Follet Discourse. If I said the words, "King Follet Discourse" to most of them, they wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about, but they're more than accustomed with the concept of human deification within mormonism.

Infact, we talk about it in Sunday School, or in Priesthood, or in Sacrament meeting numerous times every year. Heck, I think they actually discuss it in some of the manuals!

However, this is just my ward, but I'm sure it's the same in some other wards, and none of the GAs seem to care about it.

[thews]

Ok... I hope I don't again get banned for stating an opinion.

Regarding the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, one need only look at what it says to know that Emma is being deceived. Joseph Smith instructs the Whitney

[sunstoned]

The straightforward reading of this letter shows the real intent JS had. The fact that FAIR spends so much energy to try and spin it says a lot about how they feel the unvarnished truth would be perceived.

[Jeff K.]

Perhaps, or maybe they were providing context since so many people who dislike the church instinctively and without thought, take every issue out of context for their own agendas and then proudly call it the "unvarnished" truth.

[Zakuska]

Well this is the last time I'm going to respond the subject of denying black the priesthood. Per your point, the argument of slavery is different than doctrine denying blacks the priesthood based on skin color. The point of this thread was to show what was supposedly being covered up, and if one cares to read all the attempted ways this topic is being downplayed, and the fact that the decision was overtuned in 1978 would also have to be denied. I posted a lot of data that hasn't been addressed, and I really don't get how denial of the facts is going to change anything. What i would expect is to just acknowedge the truth and move on, but that's just me.

CFR. Who has denied anything?

Mola, I and several others have upfront said point blank several times there was a ban and it was lifted in 1978. That you fail to understand who the ban was againsts, why there was a ban in the first place and why it was lifted speaks more about you than anything else.

Hey Mola!

[belly Bump][down low][on the hole][spin around][your a clown]

[Pahoran]

Ok... I hope I don't again get banned for stating an opinion.

Something can only happen "again" if it has happened before.

And we know that it hasn't, for the simple reason that you are still here. You may have been suspended, but you were certainly not banned. And since you previously claimed not to know why, you would appear to have no grounds to assert that it was "for stating an opinion."

Your attempt at claiming martyr status just failed.

Based upon a previous moderator warning, I would guess that you were suspended for quoting without attribution.

Now, I previously called for references on three points relating to your assertions:

1. Please provide your analysis of the Whitney letter. Explain your reasoning, and explicitly draw your conclusions;
   
2. Explain how you reach the extraordinary conclusion that "Joseph Smith didn't want to be identifed as a polygamist, so that's why he took his garment off;" and
   
3. Tell us who Joseph's "many offspring" were.
   

I repost those questions to provide context for your response.

Let's see how well you do.

Before we start examining your responses to these, I really have to hope that you are better at parsing 19th century English than you are at parsing 21st century English. How many times did I have to reiterate that I did NOT explain polygamy in terms of "not enough men" before it finally sunk in?

I note that your post, which purports to answer my three questions, actually only addresses the first of them. Furthermore, it is worded as a response to a FAIRWiki article.

Why?

If I were to guess, I'd say you've cut and pasted it whole from somewhere. Another anti-Mormon website, is it?

Regarding the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney,

What "letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney?" was that?

Oh, you mean the letter written to her parents?

Got it.

one need only look at what it says to know that Emma is being deceived.

So that is the sole conclusion you draw from the Whitney letter, is it?

Joseph Smith instructs the Whitney

[Zakuska]

Something can only happen "again" if it has happened before.

And we know that it hasn't, for the simple reason that you are still here. You may have been suspended, but you were certainly not banned. And since you previously claimed not to know why, you would appear to have no grounds to assert that it was "for stating an opinion."

Not so fast Pahoran. I think thews just had a Fruedian slip of the keyboard. It seems thews might just be a rencarnation of someone who was banned.

[Pahoran]

The 'white' to 'pure' is a no go. It was initially White in the original manuscripts and 1830 edition, Joseph changed it to pure in the 1837 edition (hardly for racial reasons). Later editions used the un-edited version as their source, and thus many of the changes by Joseph were not incorporated until the 1981 edition, where it states clearly, "About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith."

This is a typical LDS opinion that fails to acknowledge the truth.

While that is a typical anti-Mormon accusation that denies the truth.

The

[Wiki Wonka]

The straightforward reading of this letter shows the real intent JS had. The fact that FAIR spends so much energy to try and spin it says a lot about how they feel the unvarnished truth would be perceived.

So let me make sure I understand you correctly. In this FAIR Wiki article, Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters",

1. FAIR shows four heavily edited versions of the letter used by critics.

2. FAIR then shows the entire letter.

3. FAIR points out which portions of the entire letter were omitted by the critics in order to emphasize the portions that make it sound more like a "love letter."

And you say that FAIR is spinning it?

[jwhitlock]

So let me make sure I understand you correctly. In this FAIR Wiki article, Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters",

1. FAIR shows four heavily edited versions of the letter used by critics.

2. FAIR then shows the entire letter.

3. FAIR points out which portions of the entire letter were omitted by the critics in order to emphasize the portions that make it sound more like a "love letter."

And you say that FAIR is spinning it?

Nice catch on the post by sunstoned.