rongo Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 If the ban never was the Church would be twice the size it is now, even with polygamy. Without polygamy the church would be four times the size it is.I think the exact opposite is true, especially with regards to polygamy. Negative press on the polygamy front was 100x worse from 1852 to 1890 (the heyday of Mormon polygamy) than it is today (or, even in the 1920s and 1930s ---- cf. Elder Ezra Taft Benson's experiences in England with the "Trapped by the Mormons" movie); yet, the Church's proportionate growth (as a ratio of missionaries and compared to the size of the Church, then and now) was much stronger during that time than any other time (a seeming paradox to many). That is, the Church has never grown in size and strength better than during the "polygamy era," despite withering propaganda against it in the U.S. and Europe. Dedicated converts joined the Church and emigrated to Zion in droves, knowing full well everything negative propaganda had to say about it at that time (which was numerically and content-wise much worse then than now).Despite how many first and second generation Mormons there are in the Church today, it's astonishing how many members of the Church still have polygamous ancestors from the "polygamy era." I've asked gospel doctrine classes in Chicago, Utah, and Arizona, and it continues to be (anecdotally, via straw poll) a comfortable majority. I know converts who discover, in doing their family history, that they have polygamous Mormon ancestors. I would venture to say that the Church would be smaller today if it hadn't been for polygamy ----- partly because polygamy and other controversial "Mormon" issues have been a good separater of the wheat and the chaff in terms of investigators. People who are turned off by controversial elements of our past are generally not going to make it as members long-term for a host of other reasons having nothing to do with these issues.There is the issue, too, of what President Uchtdorf spoke about at the worldwide leadership training broadcast last Saturday: growth vs. "real growth" (numbers vs. actual strength). What makes you think the Church would be "stronger" if it had "two or four times as many members" now? In a real sense, the Church was "stronger" when it consisted almost exclusively of 100,000 members in the intermountain American West who were regarded as exotic, strange, quaint, etc. And this "parochialism" did not hinder its missionary efforts in the least in the larger world ------ this was the "golden era" of Mormon missionary work. 1
Uncertain Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 It got really interesting in Brazil where Patriarchs were asked to determine lineage through revelation leading to some dark skinned people holding the priesthood and some light skinned people being restricted from holding the priesthood.Well I would say clearly those Patriarchs need to work on their lineage predicting skills . (See my post #75)Best,Uncertain
David T Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) I've never heard of him (although I probably did, decades ago when reading some biographical material on Kimball) and for me, out here in non-Utah territory, he's obscure (unlike say, Royal Skousen, or Daniel Peterson).Question: what is President Kimball's son's mantel of authority or calling that allows him to contradict and call into question the church's official position on the matter?Facts.FYI, with President Kimball's blessing and participation, he wrote the biography of Spencer W. Kimball (covering from his birth up through his Apostolic years) during his life, and published a follow-up a few years ago, covering his Presidency in unprecedented detail: Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball. Both published and available at Deseret Book.For those who follow Mormon History (and among those in the Church History Department), Edward Kimball is very well known and respected. Edited February 17, 2012 by nackhadlow 1
KevinG Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Well I would say clearly those Patriarchs need to work on their lineage predicting skills . (See my post #75)Best,UncertainLineage is by adoption as well as blood lines. Mine is clearly stated "by adoption" in my Patriarcal Blessing.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I think the exact opposite is true, especially with regards to polygamy. Negative press on the polygamy front was 100x worse from 1852 to 1890 (the heyday of Mormon polygamy) than it is today (or, even in the 1920s and 1930s ---- cf. Elder Ezra Taft Benson's experiences in England with the "Trapped by the Mormons" movie); yet, the Church's proportionate growth (as a ratio of missionaries and compared to the size of the Church, then and now) was much stronger during that time than any other time (a seeming paradox to many). That is, the Church has never grown in size and strength better than during the "polygamy era," despite withering propaganda against it in the U.S. and Europe. Dedicated converts joined the Church and emigrated to Zion in droves, knowing full well everything negative propaganda had to say about it at that time (which was numerically and content-wise much worse then than now).Agree to disagree then. Who knows perhaps back when it was ripe the growth would have far exceeded what actually happend due to polygamy and the priesthood ban. The Church would probably have grown much faster in Africa pre-1978 too. Despite how many first and second generation Mormons there are in the Church today, it's astonishing how many members of the Church still have polygamous ancestors from the "polygamy era." I've asked gospel doctrine classes in Chicago, Utah, and Arizona, and it continues to be (anecdotally, via straw poll) a comfortable majority. I know converts who discover, in doing their family history, that they have polygamous Mormon ancestors. I would venture to say that the Church would be smaller today if it hadn't been for polygamy ----- partly because polygamy and other controversial "Mormon" issues have been a good separater of the wheat and the chaff in terms of investigators. People who are turned off by controversial elements of our past are generally not going to make it as members long-term for a host of other reasons having nothing to do with these issues.You say that but I don't know any members who aren't turned off by the prosepcts of polygamy now-a-days. And I think most members will make it. There is the issue, too, of what President Uchtdorf spoke about at the worldwide leadership training broadcast last Saturday: growth vs. "real growth" (numbers vs. actual strength). What makes you think the Church would be "stronger" if it had "two or four times as many members" now? In a real sense, the Church was "stronger" when it consisted almost exclusively of 100,000 members in the intermountain American West who were regarded as exotic, strange, quaint, etc. And this "parochialism" did not hinder its missionary efforts in the least in the larger world ------ this was the "golden era" of Mormon missionary work.I don't know about stronger, per se. I'm just thinking about numbers.
zelder Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 He certainly did not condemn those who did cross to early.I agree but He did not save them from the consequenses either. The people condemning the Saints for following human prophets are in error here, not those faithful who do their best to balance personal revelation, inspired but human leaders and common sense.I think most people condemn the leaders not the followers. The poor followers suffer the consequenses and that is enough condemnation. My proplem with the church is in leaders who claim inspiration or claim to have authority and demand that people follow but in fact, they are wrong on some points and lead people astray.
Buckeye Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 It got really interesting in Brazil where Patriarchs were asked to determine lineage through revelation leading to some dark skinned people holding the priesthood and some light skinned people being restricted from holding the priesthood.Something else I had not heard. What I did understand was that there were various policies about african blood percentages. For instance, if one of your four grandparents was of african decent than you fell under the ban. Do you know what was the basis for allowing Patriarchs to intervene? I can (sort of) grasp the aborignal policy by assuming they had a different line, but if a Brazilian had a dark complexion, it would almost certainly be attributed to african ancestry.
rongo Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Lineage is by adoption as well as blood lines. Mine is clearly stated "by adoption" in my Patriarcal Blessing.As evidenced by parents who are Ephraim having children who are not-Ephraim.My great-great-great grandfather was declared to be from the tribe of Zebulun by Hyrum Smith in his patriarchal blessing. All of his descendants, including myself, are of the tribe of Ephraim.The fact that our tribe are not physical descent (i.e., there's a spiritual component with spiritual blessings and traits for each tribe) is something I discuss with people when I interview them for a patriarchal blessing recommend.
rongo Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) <duplicate post deleted> Edited February 17, 2012 by rongo
Uncertain Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Lineage is by adoption as well as blood lines. Mine is clearly stated "by adoption" in my Patriarcal Blessing.Hi DaddyG,Yes I am aware. How does this solve the problem I outlined? I think you might be missing the point to some extent. If a Patriarch claims person X is of the cursed ancient lineage while person Y is not. The Patriarch will almost certainly be right about person X and almost certainly be wrong about person Y. In other words we know for with high confidence the Patriarch is wrong when he says anyone currently alive is not of the "cursed" lineage. Tell me how exactly does a person go about being adopted into the "cursed" lineage? There are clear mechanisms by which a person can be adopted into the Abrahamic lineage things like baptism and accepting the Gospel. Take an African American in the 1950s what did this person do to be adopted into the "cursed" lineage? What religious ritual did he perform similar to baptism?Also the concept of being “adopted” into the Abrahamic lineage is entirely unnecessary. If indeed Abraham has living descendants it is very likely everyone currently alive is descended from Abraham. Everyone alive already is of the lineage of Abraham there is no need to be adopted. Best,Uncertain
rongo Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Also the concept of being “adopted” into the Abrahamic lineage is entirely unnecessary. If indeed Abraham has living descendants it is very likely everyone currently alive is descended from Abraham. Everyone alive already is of the lineage of Abraham there is no need to be adopted. Not "very likely;" it's certain. You're still thinking in terms of literal, physical descent. Everybody on the earth today is a descendant of Abraham (and everybody else who lived on the earth in the time of Abraham), but as Jesus told the Pharisees, "God can take of these stones and make children of Abraham."It has to do with covenant lineage and adoption into the covenant.
Buzzard Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I had not read the paper by Edward Kimball, and enjoyed doing so. It took some of us in the remote parts of the earth, or at least on foriegn missions, a few extra days to find out about the revelations. I never met a single person who recieved it with less than unmitigated joy, though obviously there were a few. Several months later, Elder Perry came through our mission and talked about his experience in the temple that day. It paralleled what Brother Kimball said, but was thrilling to hear coming straight from the mouth of an apostle standing only a few feet away.
Uncertain Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Not "very likely;" it's certain. You're still thinking in terms of literal, physical descent. Everybody on the earth today is a descendant of Abraham (and everybody else who lived on the earth in the time of Abraham), but as Jesus told the Pharisees, "God can take of these stones and make children of Abraham."It has to do with covenant lineage and adoption into the covenant.It is not me who was claiming certain restrictions or blessings are based on physical lineage it was the church who claimed a certain actual physical lineage based on descent could not hold the priesthood.
Calm Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) As evidenced by parents who are Ephraim having children who are not-Ephraim.My great-great-great grandfather was declared to be from the tribe of Zebulun by Hyrum Smith in his patriarchal blessing. All of his descendants, including myself, are of the tribe of Ephraim.The fact that our tribe are not physical descent (i.e., there's a spiritual component with spiritual blessings and traits for each tribe) is something I discuss with people when I interview them for a patriarchal blessing recommend.Also...Even if the claim is one of blood line, that doesn't mean that is the only blood line that might exist for an individual, but rather it is the one that matters for the purpose of the blessing. One should never use a patriarchal blessing to exclude possible genealogical connections.As you say above, one should look on the patriarchal blessing lineage as one that speaks to covenants, not biological descent or connections. Edited February 17, 2012 by calmoriah
KevinG Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Hi DaddyG,Yes I am aware. How does this solve the problem I outlined? I think you might be missing the point to some extent. If a Patriarch claims person X is of the cursed ancient lineage while person Y is not. The Patriarch will almost certainly be right about person X and almost certainly be wrong about person Y. In other words we know for with high confidence the Patriarch is wrong when he says anyone currently alive is not of the "cursed" lineage. Tell me how exactly does a person go about being adopted into the "cursed" lineage? There are clear mechanisms by which a person can be adopted into the Abrahamic lineage things like baptism and accepting the Gospel. Take an African American in the 1950s what did this person do to be adopted into the "cursed" lineage? What religious ritual did he perform similar to baptism?Also the concept of being “adopted” into the Abrahamic lineage is entirely unnecessary. If indeed Abraham has living descendants it is very likely everyone currently alive is descended from Abraham. Everyone alive already is of the lineage of Abraham there is no need to be adopted. Best,UncertainDo some study on Patriarchal blessings. We are all (or most of us in the Western Hemisphere) of mixed lineage. Adoption can come through the predomenant blood line or simply by God wanting someone placed in a particular line for His own reasons.Seeing as Priesthood is no longer segregated by lineage its not much of a problem for anyone these days.As a distinction between harping on it in 2012 and what was actually done in the 1970s the Brazilian Saints petitioned the LDS leadership to find a solution to the issue, through Priesthood channels and along with the West African Saints received their answer in 1978.
KevinG Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I agree but He did not save them from the consequenses either.I think most people condemn the leaders not the followers. The poor followers suffer the consequenses and that is enough condemnation. My proplem with the church is in leaders who claim inspiration or claim to have authority and demand that people follow but in fact, they are wrong on some points and lead people astray.Example of this? Please distinguish between mortal consequences and the judgements of God (condemnation). They are two entirely different things.
why me Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 If the doctrine wasn't "racist", then what was it?In other words, please describe it to me without using race as the sole determining factor.You forget that males who were nonwhite were baptized into the lds church and received the priesthood. And this is why it wasnt racist. And many of those who were not white from brazil were also.
why me Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 The church definitely stands by the position that the priesthood ban on the blacks occurred because of scriptural precedent and a lack of divine revelation that would overturn it instead of acknowledging the possibility that they were wrong or that church leaders were possibly blinded by their own racial prejudices.I definitely believe they were wrong, and I wish they would just acknowledge it. . There are clear evidences that their own racial prejudices often got tied up into dictating church policy even beyond the black priesthood ban.We need to go back to the problem with Black Pete and his unauthorize use of polygamy. He took it upon himself to be married to a few whte women. When BY discovered this, he panicked and certain retrictions took place. Black Pete was excommunicated for his offence and restrictions were placed on the black members. I think that after the black pete problem, the church realized that the outside world would not tolerate a black man being married to several white women. And the church would be violently attacked by mobs and maybe even many members would be murdered and the church would come under threats by mobs that would be out for any mormon blood that they could find.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Good for you. I wonder if God condemed any members of the Martin Handcart Company for waiting to cross later? I doubt it.What did I miss?
why me Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Of course the ban was racist. It was the definition of racist. It was restricted by the understanding of race at the time.When god chose the jews to be the chosen people was he being racist? I would think that god would think that all is children were chosen. Why select one group above all others?
Uncertain Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Do some study on Patriarchal blessings. We are all (or most of us in the Western Hemisphere) of mixed lineage. Adoption can come through the predomenant blood line or simply by God wanting someone placed in a particular line for His own reasons.Everyone is of a mixed lineage there is no such thing as a "pure" line of descent. I understand the concept of adoption as used in Patriarchal blessings I don't see how this applies in any way to incorrectly denying someone the priesthood on the basis of actual physical descent. Again if a Patriach claims a person is physically not of the "cursed" lineage he is certainly incorrect. Since the basis of denying the priesthood was in fact on the basis of actual physical descent I don't see how "adoption" plays a role whatsoever when it comes to denying someone the priesthood. In the words of Mark E Peterson."The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood (Brigham Young)" . It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders" "(bold added by me)Again if a Patriach states a person was physically not of the "cursed" lineage than he is certainly incorrect. Since the priesthood ban was based on actual physical lineage this is why I stated those Patriachs need to work on their prediction skills regarding who is of the physical "cursed" lineage.Seeing as Priesthood is no longer segregated by lineage its not much of a problem for anyone these days.As a distinction between harping on it in 2012 and what was actually done in the 1970s the Brazilian Saints petitioned the LDS leadership to find a solution to the issue, through Priesthood channels and along with the West African Saints received their answer in 1978.Well I don't agree it is not a problem today. When I served a mission it was a real issue for black converts and many people of color would not even consider the church due to this former practice of the church. To put it bluntly the church was clearly and undisputable in error when it stated people of certain physical lineages should not hold the priesthood. This idea is absolutely incompatible with the findings of modern population genetics. It might be "harping" to point this out. If so I am guilty .Best,Uncertain Edited February 17, 2012 by Uncertain
zelder Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Example of this?Please distinguish between mortal consequences and the judgements of God (condemnation). They are two entirely different things.The big three in my mind are blood atonement, priesthood ban including the folklore and neurotic teachings on human sexuality. These are all in the past and I'm gratefull that these things have been corrected but they were mistakes. They affected people's lives, their thinking, their hearts, their marriages. Most especially blood atonement becase the church has repudiated it despite the fact the two or more prophets taught it in the past. So it sets a precedent for the idea that prophets make mistakes. Edited February 17, 2012 by zelder
LeSellers Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 When god chose the jews [sic] to be the chosen people was he being racist? I would think that god would think that all is children were chosen. Why select one group above all others?The question of a "chosen people" usually ignores the real question: "chosen" for what?As Tevya implied, when asking God "Why not choose someone else for a while?", being chosen isn't about an easy, undemanding life.The Jews (or, more accurately, Israel) were chosen to fulfill the promise given to Abraham, that through his lineage, all the earth would be blessed. That included another oft-ignored issue: spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but that is probably grist for another mill.We, as modern Israel have been chosen, too, and primarily to meet that latter obligation. We have received the charges to preach the Gospel and to redeem the dead, two aspects of the same work. Ours is not an easy, undemanding life: we must struggle to meet those commandments, and will be held to account for how we act in regard to them.It was probably "racist" of God to choose Shem over Ham and Japeth, to give Shem the birthright over his older brother, and to promise that Abraham would be the means by which all the earth would be blessed. But I am unconvinced that "racism' is a bad thing, in spite of the loose way many people use the term. Well, maybe because of the loose way many use it. I'll gladly be "racist" in the way God is, and take pride in being in such unimaginable company.Lehi
Bernard Gui Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) ...the hearsay you report is the most absurd, asinine thing I've ever heard. I was at BYU then, and the memory of that day is still vivid in my mind. The news went instantly around the world, and there was almost universal elation among the Latter-day Saints worldwide. Nothing in my lifetime has brought more collective joy to the Church. I heard later there were a few sorry souls who were disgruntled, but they were not even enough to be on the radar.I will second this description. I remember the time and place Mrs. Gui and I heard the news on the radio. We were in the midst of moving from Illinois to Washington and heard it on the car radio news midway through Missouri (heading toward New Mexico to visit family). We both shed tears of joy. It was a transforming experience for us. We had friends in Illinois who were affected by the ban. No LDS that I know has expressed dismay to me in public or private. It came at the right time. Our generation was prepared for it.Bernard Edited February 17, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I would say that there is probably an even larger group who found out more slowly, perhaps on the Sunday the change was announced in church, and thought to themselves, "Now the blacks can have the priesthood", then promptly went on with the process of work and family and all that other good stuff.This is not my recollection. It was a hot topic of discussion for a long time. I don't recall anyonebeing indifferent.Bernard 1
Recommended Posts