Prophets in the LDS Church

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes.

It seems to me our Truthseeker has different expectations for prophets. And our Truthseeker doesn't sound particularly LDS. Maybe "Critical LDS Truthasserter" would have been a better screen name decision.

[SilverKnight]

It seems to me our Truthseeker has different expectations for prophets. And our Truthseeker doesn't sound particularly LDS. Maybe "Critical LDS Truthasserter" would have been a better screen name decision.

Here's a few more:

Predictable Canard Tosser

Boring Chestnut Enumerator

Antimormonism 101 Prostelyter

Freshman Testimony Loser

[Obiwan]

So who was wrong here - Joseph Smith for ordaining a black man to the priesthood or all the prophets after him until 1978 that denied blacks the priesthood?

I see I have to do some more "educating" again.....

LDS should learn to not accept how our "enemy's" (those who wish to destroy the Church) and the ignorant wish to define us and our history.

1. "Blacks" were not denied the Priesthood.... Those of "African" decent were.

2. Blacks of various races and all other colors in between such as the Islands, some of Central/South America, Asia, etc. WERE in fact given the Priesthood.

3. Some "whites" were denied the Priesthood or had it taken away because of their African lineage.

4. The ban had nothing to do with racism, other than potentially the racism of whites that existed in the world. It is my belief through study and inspiration that the ban was in place to prevent the Priesthood from being defiled, and other related thereto issues that would have resulted, not because of blacks, but because of racism within the world.

5. Neither the LDS Church nor the vast majority of it's members were ever "racist". Did some ever make an ethno-centrist or racist by our standards remark, sure. But the standard teachings and behaviors of the Church and it's members always was against racism and highly tolerant of those not like us. Be it other religions, peoples, races, etc., TOLERANCE has always been a fundamental LDS tenant, partially stemming from the drilling of the Articles of Faith that are drilled into every LDS and LDS child. Thus, the claim that LDS or the Church was "racist" in it's policy's is completely false.

6. There are several Biblical examples of the Priesthood of God having "lineage" and Tribe restrictions and otherwise. Not only that, but Christ Himself could be called a "racist" or at least ethno-centrist for preventing His Gospel from being preached to any "non-Jew" (Gentile), save a couple of exceptions, just like interesting there were a couple of exceptions to the Priesthood ban in the early days. That it took Peter AFTER Christ's death to receive a Revelation to then take the Gospel also to the Gentile. To be accurate, not a hypocrite and not use double standards, a person who's intellectually honest would thus have to call Christ a racist, however, we know people won't do that. Thus, when considering the LDS Church, like with Christ, the full and honest facts should be considered. That is that the ban wasn't about racism, but was simply a policy of the Church, just as the Church through all human history has had policy's that aren't necessarily seemingly "equality" based.

7. The Church also doesn't allow "women" to hold the Priesthood officially, but that doesn't make the Church somehow sexist against women. The actual facts tell a different story, and so it is with the Priesthood ban in relation to those of African decent.

Thus, the answer is, neither the Prophet Joseph Smith nor later Prophets were 'wrong'. The persons who are wrong are anti-mormons and the other ignorant, LDS or not.

[LDS Truthseeker]

Here's a few more:

Predictable Canard Tosser

Boring Chestnut Enumerator

Antimormonism 101 Prostelyter

Freshman Testimony Loser

Now that's uncalled for. I thought this was a forum that everyone can express their thoughts to gain and share others' perspectives? I don't know why my character should be assaulted when I haven't attacked anyone's choice of screen name or done anything that doesn't't fall into the relm of normal Mormon discussions. Wouldn't this be a boring forum if everyone just believed the same thing and no one questioned anything?

[Obiwan]

Regarding discrimination based on skin color,

No such thing occured in the Church, this is a lie. Read my post above.

well yes unless I was absolutely convinced that this was God's will

Is WAS God's Will, and for reasons we don't really know, but can certainly guess. Again, see above.

for example, if God specifically appeared to me and told me to discriminate against them and told me why.

Did God ever explain "why" Israel wasn't supposed to eat Pork??? Not really.

But GBH was asked why the church discrimated against blacks, he said "he didn't know the reason".

1. Again, no "discrimination" existed within the Church against "blacks". That is your ignorant worldly construct and assumption.

2. We don't know the "reason" officially, and that has occured through all of scriptural and God's dealings with man history. We aren't always told the 'reasons' we are to do something, just told to do it.

So apparently God didn't tell the prophets why and all the prophets after Brigham just blindly did what their predecessors did until several factors like opening the Brazil temple and mounting public pressure practically forced them to change this prohibition.

1. There was no 'blindness'.... It was following policy and doctrine until GOD HIMSELF said to do otherwise. You may like living by the precepts of men, but LDS do not. We follow God, not men, and so do the Prophets. And if you knew LDS history, you knew very well that every single Prophet desired the ban to be lifted. And God did so by revelation when it finally came time FOR HIM per HIS WILL to have it lifted.

2. True, changes and growth in the Church was a catalist to some change, but it is completely false that there was "mounting public pressure" against the Church at the time. What public pressure had occured, occured much prior to the time the change/revelation came. Do you really think the creator of the book/movie "Roots" would have went to the Church and in front of everyone been given an honorary award if normal people of good will thought the Church was racist at the time, and there was such public pressure against it? No he wouldn't have. (I mention this because I just watched it again, and the documentary's also etc, and the Church was right there respectfully mentioned, video showing the honorary event.)

The same is true of polygamy. There doesn't appear to be any specific, direct revelation to end polygamy but rather a logical response that the church is going to be bankrupt if it doesn't change the practice.

There was "Revelation" for BOTH polygamy and the Priesthood ban being lifted. You further seem to not understand that the Church operates and always has "within" the world it exists. It doesn't do things in a vacuum. Those within the Church and without simply were not "worthy" to live Plural Marriage, thus it was stopped. And with the Priesthood ban, the world was finally "worthy" enough to not be bigots anymore towards those of African decent, and thus the ban was lifted. God has HIS REASONS for everything. You not understanding that is not our problem, but yours.

[LDS Truthseeker]

4. ... It is my belief through study and inspiration that the ban was in place to prevent the Priesthood from being defiled, and other related thereto issues that would have resulted, not because of blacks, but because of racism within the world.

Tell that to an African American - that the priesthood would be defiled if given to 'people of African heritage' before 1978 and see if he would agree with that.

[SilverKnight]

Now that's uncalled for. I thought this was a forum that everyone can express their thoughts to gain and share others' perspectives? I don't know why my character should be assaulted when I haven't attacked anyone's choice of screen name or done anything that doesn't't fall into the relm of normal Mormon discussions. Wouldn't this be a boring forum if everyone just believed the same thing and no one questioned anything?

I wouldn't say your character has been assaulted - just your ironic screen name.

And yes, this place would indeed be boring if the only pro-LDS viewpoints were expressed.

[Jaybear]

1. "Blacks" were not denied the Priesthood.... Those of "African" decent were.

2. Blacks of various races and all other colors inbetween such as the Islands, some of Central/South America, Asia, etc. WERE in fact given the Priesthood.

The term "black" in this context was in reference to a racial term to describe those of african decent.

The people you refer to in paragraph 2, though dark skinned, are not considered or called "black". By calling them "blacks of various races" you are likely insulting them.

I realize you are trying to create some sort of apologetic explanation as to why the ban was not racist, but as the ban it applied those of the "African race," it was by definition racist.

[Obiwan]

Now that's uncalled for. I thought this was a forum that everyone can express their thoughts to gain and share others' perspectives? I don't know why my character should be assaulted when I haven't attacked anyone's choice of screen name or done anything that doesn't't fall into the relm of normal Mormon discussions. Wouldn't this be a boring forum if everyone just believed the same thing and no one questioned anything?

When interacting with people and throwing around "disrespect" and degrading toward them and their Faith, you shouldn't be surprised that some might throw back some intellectual based sarcasm and disrespect to you.

In other words.... If you throw punches at people, you shouldn't be surprised that some might actually punch back. So, grow up and stop with the I'm sweet and all light, and you hurt my feelings. You should instead be focusing on YOUR WORDS that defile.

Your statement is like Islam and fanatical Islam and liberals whining that Bush etc. goes after and kills the bad guys, and then that somehow makes HIM/etc. the actual "bad guys" of the world. tisk tisk

[Bob Crockett]

There doesn't appear to be any specific, direct revelation to end polygamy but rather a logical response that the church is going to be bankrupt if it doesn't change the practice.

That's not true, at least as explained by President Joseph F. Smith to the Senate committee investigating Reed Smoot. He explained to Senate lawyers that the OD was just as much a revelation as Joseph Smith's.

But, of course, a fundamentalist might disparage anything somebody after Lorenzo Snow might say on the subject.

Regarding discrimination based on skin color, well yes unless I was absolutely convinced that this was God's will - for example, if God specifically appeared to me and told me to discriminate against them and told me why. But GBH was asked why the church discrimated against blacks, he said "he didn't know the reason". So apparently God didn't tell the prophets why and all the prophets after Brigham just blindly did what their predecessors did until several factors like opening the Brazil temple and mounting public pressure practically forced them to change this prohibition. The same is true of polygamy. There doesn't appear to be any specific, direct revelation to end polygamy but rather a logical response that the church is going to be bankrupt if it doesn't change the practice.

How do you account for Jesus' apparent racism (calling a woman and her sick child "dogs" because they were non-Jewish Palestinians)? Or the restriction against admitting to the congregation of Israel Moabites, even until the tenth generation? (Which God seemed to ignore inexplicably, by permitting David to be an Israelite, with a great-grandmother a Moabite.)

[Bob Crockett]

Dupe

[LDS Truthseeker]

Neither. Those cases took place before the command was given to restrict the Priesthood.

Is that doctrine or your speculation? I've never heard it definitively answered before but that's a reasonable possibility.

[ebeddoulos]

So who was wrong here - Joseph Smith for ordaining a black man to the priesthood or all the prophets after him until 1978 that denied blacks the priesthood?

I have noticed a common theme to your posts in this thread. If there are two viewpoints, you invariably pick the darkest, most negative. You are not always a "glass half-empty" kinda guy, are you? May I suggest that the next time, when you must choose between two viewpoints, that you you surprise yourself and pick the one you have never tried before? I for one would like to see a positive aspect emminate from you. There may be one or two others around you who would as well.

[Obiwan]

Tell that to an African American - that the priesthood would be defiled if given to 'people of African heritage' before 1978 and see if he would agree with that.

You need to learn to read and comprehend English before you open your mouth, as clear by the amount of false judgments you have about mormonism in this thread. I specifically stated that it was NOT BECAUSE OF BLACKS. And for your information, there are many Americans of African decent within the Church, and nearly ALL of them understand that the racism was the racism within the world thus the reason for the ban, not the Church.

Most know very well that the Church has always been the Lords Church, and the Lords Church isn't and wasn't racist.

Believe what you want, but I tell you the facts alone, not simply beliefs and opinions.

I once left the Church myself primarily over this issue, so don't tell me what is and isn't. You are entirely ignorant, thinking a little truth is the "actual" truth of things, when it's not even close.

[LDS Truthseeker]

How do you account for Jesus' apparent racism (calling a woman and her sick child "dogs" because they were non-Jewish Palestinians)?

You'll have to educate me on that. Where does it say that?

[Obiwan]

The term "black" in this context was in reference to a racial term to describe those of african decent.

The people you refer to in paragraph 2, though dark skinned, are not considered or called "black". By calling them "blacks of various races" you are likely insulting them.

I realize you are trying to create some sort of apologetic explanation as to why the ban was not racist, but as the ban it applied those of the "African race," it was by definition racist.

And I say again.... By "definition" do you call mormons "sexist" also, because the ban also applies to woman???

Get a clue please. RACISM has a specific moral based definition. We aren't talking about the "clinical" technical definition, we are talking about the thing that is "bad".

Also, people that are "black" who many are just as black as those of African decent have always also been called "black". So, spare us your made up malarky.

[LDS Truthseeker]

I have noticed a common theme to your posts in this thread. If there are two viewpoints, you invariably pick the darkest, most negative. You are not always a "glass half-empty" kinda guy, are you? May I suggest that the next time, when you must choose between two viewpoints, that you you surprise yourself and pick the one you have never tried before? I for one would like to see a positive aspect emminate from you. There may be one or two others around you who would as well.

I agree with your postcript "Where offence is not intended, none should be taken." My intention was not to offend but rather to cut to the quick and ask a bold question, perhaps too bold for this forum. My apologies for not sugar-coating my responses.

[Scott Gordon]

The term "black" in this context was in reference to a racial term to describe those of african decent.

The people you refer to in paragraph 2, though dark skinned, are not considered or called "black". By calling them "blacks of various races" you are likely insulting them.

I realize you are trying to create some sort of apologetic explanation as to why the ban was not racist, but as the ban it applied those of the "African race," it was by definition racist.

I'm not agreeing with or disagreeing with your post or his post Jaybear. But you might be interested in this 1960 poster. It was an argument even back then.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/racial-discrimination-protest-poster

I believe his point is that there are those with dark skin color in New Zealand, and in Australia that were given the priesthood.

[Jaybear]

And I say again.... By "definition" do you call mormons "sexist" also, because the ban also applies to woman???

Yes. I consider both the LDS Church and the RCC to be sexist organizations. The RCC is making progress. About ten years ago, they let girl be alter servers.

Get a clue please. RACISM has a specific moral based definition. We aren't talking about the "clinical" technical definition, we are talking about the thing that is "bad".

The LDS Church's exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was "bad." That is why Mitt Romney pulled over his car and cried when he learned of the "revelation."

[Bob Crockett]

You'll have to educate me on that. Where does it say that?

Interesting response. A pretty famous NT incident. Your observations about the Church in this area seems to suggest a lack of grounding in Christian theology. I can see how offensive the Church's history towards Africans would seem if you didn't know anything about how God was exclusionary.

[SilverKnight]

Yes. I consider both the LDS Church and the RCC to be sexist organizations. The RCC is making progress. About ten years ago, they let girl be alter servers.

And a thousand years before that, they let them be nuns.

[randy]

Again...I do ask if that we stay focused on the question my friend has posed.."why are modern Prophets needed?"

[Scott Gordon]

The LDS Church's exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was "bad." That is why Mitt Romney pulled over his car and cried when he learned of the "revelation."

If we grant you it was "bad", and the revelation was "good," how do you feel about those protestant denominations that worshiped in segregated congregations, or didn't allow blacks in at all? How about those Ministers in the South who were also slave holders, or even KKK Grand Dragons? I don't see much complaining about Methodists' racial history, and yet the Methodists and the Baptists held a large number of slaves--far more than Mormons ever did. Was the issue played up when Carter or Bush became president?

I will grant you that Americans, including Mormons, were, and in some cases still are, racist. I just find it interesting that even though the policy was changed 32 years ago through divine intervention, we continue to be bludgeoned in the media and on the message boards on this issue.

Is the message that we were somehow MORE racist than everyone else, or that it is UNDERSTANDABLE that everyone else is racist, but that Mormons shouldn't be because unlike everyone else Mormons have a direct connection to God? I don't find support for either of these positions. Just look to the New Testament and you see they struggled with similar issues.

[Scott Gordon]

deleted--posted twice

[Zakuska]

How do you account for Jesus' apparent racism (calling a woman and her sick child "dogs" because they were non-Jewish Palestinians)?

You'll have to educate me on that. Where does it say that?

Matt 15

21