So many threads that blame the Church for human failing; why?

[Calm]

Or seen Nobody Knows:  the Untold Story of Black Mormons?

Or Russell Stevenson's For the Cause of Righteousness?

If I understood you correctly, you have studied Perkins' Blacks in the Scriptures and perhaps participated in one of his gatherings?

Edited April 1, 2016 by Calm

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, Keq82 said:

Further, are we to believe that God didn't want those of a darken skin to enjoy the fruits of the gospel (for 150 years)...and then just changed his mind in 1978?

Either:

1. The doctrine on race (e.g., blacks and the curse of Cain) the church taught for 150 years was false and not of God (my opinion).

2. God wanted to curse an entire race of people (based on skin color) and then changed his mind in 1978.  

If you support number 2, then you believe in a God that promotes/warrants racist doctrine.  If the church can't admit it taught false doctrine on race, it, in no way, can repent and reconcile its past, IMO.  

or 3. God allowed BY to exercise his key because of the churchs own faults. In other words the church had shown it was not ready to live with blacks in the priesthood, and was no longer willing to bear persecution with them. BTW BY could do this without "a revelation." Indeed Utah passed a law under BY allowing slavery which JS roundly condemed.

I don't support number 2, but I don't necessarily believe that denying the priesthood is a curse. The Gentiles were denied the priesthood for many years... was God exercising racism or cursing the Gentiles?

Edited April 1, 2016 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Keq82 said:

I forgot that all you like to do is ask for CFRs...

Here is some LDS history for you:

If it was doctrine to ban the priesthood from blacks from the time of Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball, it would mean that all of those prophets up until 1978 were mistaken and supported/taught false doctrine.  That means the first 11 prophets of the church ("most of our prophets" 11 out of 16) were WRONG. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints 

Here we see the results of your Wikipedia style scholarship, which results in a completely false statement that "most of our prophets were wrong and were preaching false doctrine...for 150 years."  You portray yourself as a member of the LDS Church, and yet you so frequently don't know anything about that Church -- indicating that you are either not actually a member (now or in the past), or are horribly misinformed.

Any well-informed member of the LDS Church would know that Joseph Smith did not ban blacks from the Priesthood.  He not only approved their ordination, but he also publicly opposed slavery (slavery was supported by virtually all Christian churches in the deep South).

Moreover, if "church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, PAST, and present, in any form," then that would mean it was FALSE doctrine to ban blacks from the priesthood.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng 

Of course it was false doctrine to ban blacks from the Priesthood of God.  And racism should always be condemned.

....................................................................   

 

[Keq82]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

The wikipedia link was to show the list of the 16 LDS prophets.  

Also, JFS said the following:

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible."

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Improvement Era, v. 27, n. 6, p. 565.

This means that blacks were banned from the time of JS until SWK (11 out of 16 prophets).  

And finally, if you agree that it was "false doctrine to ban the blacks from the priesthood," then you proved my point.  No more discussion needed. 

[Keq82]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Keq, have you read Paul Reeve A Religion of a Different Colour?

No, I'll have to check it out.  

[ksfisher]

57 minutes ago, Keq82 said:

The wikipedia link was to show the list of the 16 LDS prophets.  

Also, JFS said the following:

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible."

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Improvement Era, v. 27, n. 6, p. 565.

This means that blacks were banned from the time of JS until SWK (11 out of 16 prophets).  

And finally, if you agree that it was "false doctrine to ban the blacks from the priesthood," then you proved my point.  No more discussion needed. 

Fairmormon shows the following blacks being ordained to the priesthood during the time of Joseph Smith:

"Black Pete (1831 OH), Elijah Abel (1835 OH), Joseph T. Ball (1837 MA), Isaac van Meter (<1837 ME), and Walker and Enoch Lewis (Fall 1843-Nov. 1844 MA)"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

The story of Black Pete is discussed in some detail in Mark Staker's book, "Hearken O Ye People: the Historical Setting for Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations."  It's a book very good book by a very nice man.  My wife has done a little work with him and found him to be a font of knowledge on early church history.

http://smile.amazon.com/Hearken-Ye-People-Historical-Revelations/dp/158958113X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459523785&sr=1-1&keywords=hearken+o+ye+people

If you haven't read Edward Kimball's biography of his father's time as president of the church, it is also very well worth the time and very informative.  I usually don't go in for biographies, but thoroughly enjoyed this one.  It discussed the ending of the priesthood ban in some detail. 

http://smile.amazon.com/Lengthen-Your-Stride-Edward-Kimball-ebook/dp/B004EYSPIC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459524031&sr=1-1&keywords=lengthen+your+stride

 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Fairmormon shows the following blacks being ordained to the priesthood during the time of Joseph Smith:

"Black Pete (1831 OH), Elijah Abel (1835 OH), Joseph T. Ball (1837 MA), Isaac van Meter (<1837 ME), and Walker and Enoch Lewis (Fall 1843-Nov. 1844 MA)"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

The story of Black Pete is discussed in some detail in Mark Staker's book, "Hearken O Ye People: the Historical Setting for Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations."  It's a book very good book by a very nice man.  My wife has done a little work with him and found him to be a font of knowledge on early church history.

http://smile.amazon.com/Hearken-Ye-People-Historical-Revelations/dp/158958113X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459523785&sr=1-1&keywords=hearken+o+ye+people

If you haven't read Edward Kimball's biography of his father's time as president of the church, it is also very well worth the time and very informative.  I usually don't go in for biographies, but thoroughly enjoyed this one.  It discussed the ending of the priesthood ban in some detail.

http://smile.amazon.com/Lengthen-Your-Stride-Edward-Kimball-ebook/dp/B004EYSPIC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459524031&sr=1-1&keywords=lengthen+your+stride

 

I love how members today like to paint racism in the Church as starting with Brigham Young.
Joseph Smith made several racist statements and teachings.
He may or may not have established the ban on blacks being ordained to the priesthood, but he made plenty of other racial statements that members today ignore in favor of the old "Blame Brother Brigham" game.

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you can point in the scriptures where institutional forgivess is taught by this process.

The one I see applying is this one:  

" 7 Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death.

 8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflictedand sorely chastened.

 9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required toforgive all men."

 

Now most of the leaders who condoned racism policies and teachings are dead.  They have confessed to Christ and asked for forgiveness or he has made other arrangements as his right.

Otoh, we are not given much option here.  We are required to forgive all men, even our leaders, whether or not we know they have gone through the repentance process.

If you yourself feel the need to repent for your past racism, you certainly should go through the process.  I hope it helps you feel better.  

If you see others who haven't repented yet, you (all of us) still are required by commandment to forgive or youwill have sinned just as those who judged others because of their race sinned, isthis not correct according to scripture?

No doubt we should be quick to forgive.  To bring up past racism is far more instructive then it is an attempt to condemn those of the past.  We have to acknowledge that:

1.  leaders are products of their times (influenced heavily in thought by the culture around them, much like everyone else)

2.  Culture and tradition are invariably fallible

3.  Revelation is not only not fool proof (meaning we mere mortals, including our leaders mistake other things with revelation--thus the idea that the priesthood ban was God's will), but it also is not exhaustive in terms of issues we face

4.  None of this is a bad thing.  It is simply the reality we face. 

We simply can't rely blindly or exclusively on our leaders.  We can't pretend that a message to others to do so is justified.  We can't pretend the leaders aren't going to mislead us somehow, because we know they have (the case of race is one example of that). we have to be able to give credence to JS' notion that we should embrace truth no matter from whence it comes.  We are far too quick to say "it ain't coming from the prophet therefore it's not good".  There is too much room for error reigning in our hearts now, considering the points above, to not realize the leaders are probably mistaken on a few things.  And it shouldn't be a problem for people to say that.   

And finally the ultimate conclusion is we can't sit idly by why primary indoctrinates our kids with the awful song of follow the prophet. (-;  I meant that a bit playfully.  But I do think that song represents a problem we are creating. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I love how members today like to paint racism in the Church as starting with Brigham Young.
Joseph Smith made several racist statements and teachings.
He may or may not have established the ban on blacks being ordained to the priesthood, but he made plenty of other racial statements that members today ignore in favor of the old "Blame Brother Brigham" game.

Excellent point.  It's nice to see some of Joseph's ideas and think he wasn't so bad in terms of race, he was rather progressive.  But we should take in all of his thoughts before we draw that conclusion.  He certainly made several racist statements and promoted racist teachings too. 

[Kevin Christensen]

Rather than treat Brigham Young or Joseph Smith as the source of the Noah's Curse business, a little historical context goes a long way towards providing a healthy perspective:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical

The teaching was not a Mormon doctrine per se, but an inheritance from the larger western culture with roots that don't go back to the Bible, but to a much later rationalization for the slave trade.   And any ranting about Brigham Young, or breathless and righteously indignant posting of cherry picked quotes without an honest recognition of the larger context and deeper history, is, at this late date, a demonstration of the problem of not checking one's own eye for beams.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[consiglieri]

In my criticisms of the LDS Church, I have never tried to criticize for purely human failings of the leaders, such as President Monson's deteriorating health.

I have attempted to focus my criticism on a limited number of things:

1. Long-standing, and ongoing, attempts by Church leaders to hide its history from its members.

2. Speaking out of both sides of its mouth--saying one thing to the outside community and another thing to its membership on the same issue.

3. Instituting policies (and later calling them revelation) that not only offend the Spirit of God, but also contradict fundamental doctrines of the LDS Church.

4. Misleading Church members through the use of equivocation.

5. Leaders claiming gifts they do not have by virtue of the offices they hold.

 

While all these could be classified to some degree as "human failings," I believe such things should not exist in an organization that claims to be led by direct revelation through prophets of God.

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Rather than treat Brigham Young or Joseph Smith as the source of the Noah's Curse business, a little historical context goes a long way towards providing a healthy perspective:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical

The teaching was not a Mormon doctrine per se, but an inheritance from the larger western culture with roots that don't go back to the Bible, but to a much later rationalization for the slave trade.   And any ranting about Brigham Young, or breathless and righteously indignant posting of cherry picked quotes without an honest recognition of the larger context and deeper history, is, at this late date, a demonstration of the problem of not checking one's own eye for beams.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Which is an excellent contribution to the discussion.  But then it tells us reality is, our leaders are constrained in their teaching by the culture and tradition from which they come.  if true, we need to make that clear to our dear members, rather than pretending they are above and beyond the culture and tradition they often want to condemn. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

In my criticisms of the LDS Church, I have never tried to criticize for purely human failings of the leaders, such as President Monson's deteriorating health.

I have attempted to focus my criticism on a limited number of things:

1. Long-standing, and ongoing, attempts by Church leaders to hide its history from its members.

2. Speaking out of both sides of its mouth--saying one thing to the outside community and another thing to its membership on the same issue.

3. Instituting policies (and later calling them revelation) that not only offend the Spirit of God, but also contradict fundamental doctrines of the LDS Church.

4. Misleading Church members through the use of equivocation.

5. Leaders claiming gifts they do not have by virtue of the offices they hold.

 

While all these could be classified to some degree as "human failings," I believe such things should not exist in an organization that claims to be led by direct revelation through prophets of God.

 

 

Oh man, how right you are for these complaints.  The conclusion is an interesting one we ought to consider.  how could such problems have arisen in a Church directed by God?  It's possible God suffers it to be so, ever leaving the individual that much more to deal with on his/her own path towards eternity. 

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I love how members today like to paint racism in the Church as starting with Brigham Young.
Joseph Smith made several racist statements and teachings.
He may or may not have established the ban on blacks being ordained to the priesthood, but he made plenty of other racial statements that members today ignore in favor of the old "Blame Brother Brigham" game.

I would hope that we don't feel the need to blame any one person. 

Human society has been inherently racist throughout history, so I don't think it's fair to blame any one person.

Edited April 1, 2016 by ksfisher

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh man, how right you are for these complaints.  The conclusion is an interesting one we ought to consider.  how could such problems have arisen in a Church directed by God?  It's possible God suffers it to be so, ever leaving the individual that much more to deal with on his/her own path towards eternity. 

 

I guess you could conclude, like others here have, that the church is not being directed by God. 

Personally, I choose to trust the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  They have been called by God and set apart to lead the church, by revelation, in these latter days.  They seem much more reliable to me than anonymous internet posters who safely hide behind their keyboards while hurling insults at the Lord's servants.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

I guess you could conclude, like others here have, that the church is not being directed by God. 

Personally, I choose to trust the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  They have been called by God and set apart to lead the church, by revelation, in these latter days.  They seem much more reliable to me than anonymous internet posters who safely hide behind their keyboards while hurling insults at the Lord's servants.

I would suggest though, that though called by God and set apart to lead, they still make errors, some, as the race issue has shown, have been very grievous and detrimental, so much so we still have to deal with the effects of it today.  It's likely we and they are stuck promoting other errors without realizing it. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would hope that we don't feel the need to blame any one person.

Human society has been inherently racist throughout history, so I don't think it's fair to blame any one person.

I'd like to think that too, but Brigham is being blamed for almost everything people don't like in the Church at this point.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Your guess is wrong, my good man, or woman--sorry it's hard to tell on these boards.  Whatever your gender, I would suggest though, that though called by God and set apart to lead, they still make errors, some, as the race issue has shown, have been very grievous and detrimental, so much so we still have to deal with the effects of it today.  It's likely we and they are stuck promoting other errors without realizing it. 

Gender is listed next to each board members post, if they have chosen to share.

I wonder if the Lord would use the terms "grievous and detrimental" in describing the service of any of his apostles or chosen prophets. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd like to think that too, but Brigham is being blamed for almost everything people don't like in the Church at this point.

Easy scapegoat

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Gender is listed next to each board members post, if they have chosen to share.

I wonder if the Lord would use the terms "grievous and detrimental" in describing the service of any of his apostles or chosen prophets. 

I'm sure he would.  Why would He not if it promoted things like racism? 

Sorry about the gender mixup and the misunderstanding.  I edited my previous post.  That's right about gender...it's sitting right there.  I plum forgot. 

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How could such problems have arisen in a Church directed by God?  It's possible God suffers it to be so, ever leaving the individual that much more to deal with on his/her own path towards eternity.

• Brigham Young - He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

We on this board and in this Church may not agree on where the Church may be out of order.
In my opinion, all the ways the Church is out of order (according to my viewpoint) is due to their compromising to make factions or groups of people happy.
In others opinions based on what I read, the way the Church is out of order (according to their viewpoint) is in their NOT being willing to make compromises and adjustments, like ordaining women or allowing SSM in the Church.

Basically, there is always going to be a group of members that doesn't agree with the Church on some things.  And if Brigham is right and we are led astray, it will be because we are supposed to be (probably due to our own weaknesses)

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Any well-informed member of the LDS Church would know that Joseph Smith did not ban blacks from the Priesthood.  He not only approved their ordination, but he also publicly opposed slavery (slavery was supported by virtually all Christian churches in the deep South).

Joseph Smith also made statements in support of slavery (see http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-april-1836), so he wasn't exactly William Wilberforce.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• Brigham Young - He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.

We on this board and in this Church may not agree on where the Church may be out of order.
In my opinion, all the ways the Church is out of order (according to my viewpoint) is due to their compromising to make factions or groups of people happy.
In others opinions based on what I read, the way the Church is out of order (according to their viewpoint) is in their NOT being willing to make compromises and adjustments, like ordaining women or allowing SSM in the Church.

Basically, there is always going to be a group of members that doesn't agree with the Church on some things.  And if Brigham is right and we are led astray, it will be because we are supposed to be (probably due to our own weaknesses)

Then again, Brigham is probably wrong.  But we can tell ourselves anything we want to help with the difficulty that is squaring reality with our perceptions, mostly we just create new assumptions. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Then again, Brigham is probably wrong.  But we can tell ourselves anything we want to help with the difficulty that is squaring reality with our perceptions, mostly we just create new assumptions.

Nah, as I already stated, I think he's exactly right.

The Church IS out of order and will be set in order.  And most of the ways in which we are out of order have come from the feelings and demands of the membership.  Just as they always have (see Moses and the Children of Israel for another example of this).

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No doubt we should be quick to forgive.  To bring up past racism is far more instructive then it is an attempt to condemn those of the past. 

And yet if someone is insisting that we condemn our leaders, I find it hard not to see it as an attempt to condemn rather than instruct (especially when I see some gaps in knowledge that I would expect to see in someone extremely concerned with an issue and wanting to instruct others on it).