Calm Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said: Zechariah 14 says that when this correction happens "the Canaanite (blacks) will no longer be in the House of the Lord." Another question...do you believe this means blacks don’t actually hold the priesthood at this time or just that it will be removed again for some reason? Link to comment
Popular Post katherine the great Posted February 3, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Calm said: Please demonstrate the Cannanites referred to in Zechariah were African descent blacks. He can’t because they weren’t. 7 Link to comment
Popular Post Peacefully Posted February 3, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: Among other things yes. Zechariah 14 says that when this correction happens "the Canaanite (blacks) will no longer be in the House of the Lord." Polygamy is an eternal principle and will most certainly be coming back when the Lord's people are once again worthy of it. Wow, the first part is just wrong, and I can’t take anything you say seriously now. The stuff you are spouting as if you know things the rest of us don’t was already giving me the heebi-jeebies, but this is beyond the pale. 5 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 48 minutes ago, katherine the great said: He can’t because they weren’t. Lest anyone doubt, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 8 minutes ago, Peacefully said: Wow, the first part is just wrong, and I can’t take anything you say seriously now. The stuff you are spouting as if you know things the rest of us don’t was already giving me the heebi-jeebies, but this is beyond the pale. Welcome. 1 Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Calm said: Another question...do you believe this means blacks don’t actually hold the priesthood at this time or just that it will be removed again for some reason? My personal opinion is that they don't actually have the priesthood, for as Joseph Fielding Smith said "man can not give what God has denied." However, I also consider it to be possible that God did allow them to have the priesthood, just like he allowed Martin Harris to take the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 hours ago, Calm said: Please demonstrate the Cannanites referred to in Zechariah were African descent blacks. The Canaanites are blacks. Look at Abraham 1, Moses 7, Genesis 9, and Genesis 10. Then compare that to what Joseph Smith taught about blacks being under a curse. He called them the "sons of Canaan" and "sons of Cain." He actually quoted from Genesis 9 and applied the curse Noah put on Canaan to the blacks. The Lord's use of the word "Canaanite" in the prophecy in Zechariah 14 was a specific reference to a specific people. Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 23 minutes ago, Peacefully said: Wow, the first part is just wrong And why is that? Because it's not PC? I quoted a scripture which says what it says. The Canaanites are blacks. The Lord said that when the setting in order happens, they will no longer be in his house. 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I can’t take anything you say seriously now. Why is that? Because I gave an honest and truthful answer to a question I was asked? Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 hour ago, katherine the great said: He can’t because they weren’t. Abraham 1, Moses 7, Genesis 9, Genesis 10, and the statements by Joseph Smith linking blacks to the curse Noah put upon Canaan and his posterity and calling them the "sons of Canaan" and "sons of Cain." Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 29 minutes ago, Peacefully said: The stuff you are spouting as if you know things the rest of us don’t was already giving me the heebi-jeebies, but this is beyond the pale. I'm sure a Baptists would say the same thing to a pair of full-time missionaries from our church. Truth is truth, whether it makes people uncomfortable or not. I can back up everything I'm saying from the scriptures and the words of Joseph Smith. Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Lest anyone doubt, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites I trust Joseph Smith and the revelations he brought forth over sciencemag.org. Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 5 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: I trust Joseph Smith and the revelations he brought forth over sciencemag.org. You're new here but advancing racist doctrine is a quick way to get banned from the board. 4 Link to comment
Calm Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 22 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: My personal opinion is that they don't actually have the priesthood, for as Joseph Fielding Smith said "man can not give what God has denied." However, I also consider it to be possible that God did allow them to have the priesthood, just like he allowed Martin Harris to take the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. So what happens in your opinion to the ordinances performed by blacks? Are they invalid or does God allow them to count? Link to comment
Islander Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 On 1/26/2021 at 8:15 AM, AtlanticMike said: Through my limited research, apparently there's already some LDS women who have the priesthood, we dont know how many because that ceremony cant be talked about. So if that's true, then it's just a matter of opening it up to all LDS women. That is a fabrication. There is absolutely no doctrinal foundation for that. The closest the sisters come to the priesthood is temple work. On the other side of the wall, under the auspices and authority of the priesthood, sisters are allowed to perform certain rituals to other sisters but not ordinances. I am sorry but you have been grossly misinformed. Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Islander said: On the other side of the wall, under the auspices and authority of the priesthood, sisters are allowed to perform certain rituals to other sisters but not ordinances. Pres Boyd K. Packer: Quote The ordinances of washing and anointing are referred to often in the temple as initiatory ordinances. It will be sufficient for our purposes to only say the following: Associated with the endowment are washings and anointings—mostly symbolic in nature, but promising definite, immediate blessings as well as future blessings. Elder James E. Talmage: Quote Provision is also made for rooms where certain ordinances of anointing are performed. In these ceremonies only women administer to women, and men to men. Edited February 3, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 2 Link to comment
Peacefully Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 33 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: And why is that? Because it's not PC? I quoted a scripture which says what it says. The Canaanites are blacks. The Lord said that when the setting in order happens, they will no longer be in his house. Why is that? Because I gave an honest and truthful answer to a question I was asked? I’ve been on this board for awhile and I’ve seen a lot of things that I don’t agree with, but I believe we all have a right to our opinion. However, spreading false and racist doctrine is not something I am willing to let go. Consider yourself reported. 2 Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You're new here but advancing racist doctrine is a quick way to get banned from the board. I'm not advancing any doctrine that isn't straight from Joseph Smith and the scriptures. If that gets me banished then I guess this forum isn't for me. I also have never started a discussion about blacks and the curse of Cain. I have only responded to other people when they bring it up or ask me my opinions about it. People shouldn't ask questions if they can't handle the answers. Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Peacefully said: I’ve been on this board for awhile and I’ve seen a lot of things that I don’t agree with, but I believe we all have a right to our opinion. However, spreading false and racist doctrine is not something I am willing to let go. Consider yourself reported. You asked me a question and I gave an honest answer which I then supported from the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith. I'm sorry that offends you. Edited February 3, 2021 by LDS Watchman Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: So what happens in your opinion to the ordinances performed by blacks? Are they invalid or does God allow them to count? In my opinion they don't count, but like I said I consider it possible that God temporarily allowed them to have the priesthood, similar to how he allowed Martin Harris to take the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. If the Lord did in fact permit them to have the priesthood, then I would assume that the ordinances they perform would be valid. Assuming of course that any of our ordinances are still valid at this point. Edited February 3, 2021 by LDS Watchman Link to comment
Calm Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 46 minutes ago, Peacefully said: I’ve been on this board for awhile and I’ve seen a lot of things that I don’t agree with, but I believe we all have a right to our opinion. However, spreading false and racist doctrine is not something I am willing to let go. Consider yourself reported. I did ask him because I wanted to be sure what he meant, so besides the first comment he made on his own, not sure it counts as intentionally spreading. Link to comment
Calm Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said: In my opinion they don't count, but like I said I consider it possible that God temporarily allowed them to have the priesthood, similar to how he allowed Martin Harris to take the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. If they Lord did in fact permit them to have the priesthood, then the ordinances they perform would likely be valid. So if invalid, what is going on with all those who were baptized and given the priesthood or gift of the Holy Ghost by someone with any descent from black Africans (I assume you limit it to them) even if they are not aware of their descent? Do they just assume they have the gift of the Holy Ghost and don’t and any inspiration is by faith like any nonmember? They would not actually be members even in your view because of the invalidity of their baptism, correct? What percentage of DNA matters? If someone has one black in their ancestors back 20 generations, does that count as “black” in your view? If so, 40 generations? 100 generations? I honestly don’t understand how you can believe the priesthood was never actually given to blacks and still believe the Church is acting with any of God’s authority since it takes no notice if an ordinance is done by a black man or not. It seems to me baptisms would be invalid in general since 1978 since blacks began to perform and witness and authorize them as priests, elders, bishops, stake presidents, and seventies. And given the likelihood of the majority of earth’s current inhabitants having some ancestor who was black African, if black descendants are truly banned, the majority of humanity likely cannot hold the priesthood or perform valid ordinances from the moment the Church was formed. Edited February 3, 2021 by Calm 1 Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 4 minutes ago, Calm said: So if invalid, what is going on with all those who were baptized and given the priesthood or gift of the Holy Ghost by someone with any descent from black Africans (I assume you limit it to them) even if they are not aware of their descent? Do they just assume they have the gift of the Holy Ghost and don’t and any inspiration is by faith like any nonmember? They would not actually be members even in your view because of the invalidity of their baptism, correct? All I can offer is my opinion, for what it's worth. First of all, I'm not convinced that the ordinances being performed in the church today are completely valid anyway. If they are, I think the authority is there, but the power is generally absent. I don't believe most of us baptized members actually have the gift of the Holy Ghost in the way we think we do. Because I believe the power is pretty much gone, I don't know that it makes much difference at this point whether someone has an ordinance performed by a black man or a man of another race. And like I've said twice already, I consider it to be possible that the Lord permitted black men to have the same authority as every other man in the church for the time being. So in essence, even though I firmly believe that lifting the ban was wrong, I'm not worried about these supposed issues you refer, too. 20 minutes ago, Calm said: What percentage of DNA matters? If someone has one black in their ancestors back 20 generations, does that count as “black” in your view? If so, 40 generations? 100 generations? I believe past LDS presidents have addressed this question, but for what it's worth, here's my opinion: I don't worry about some unknown ancestor being black or percentages and all that. According to Brigham Young black skin and other distinctly "black" features represent the mark of the curse of Cain. So in my opinion those who have distinct "black" features are under the curse of Cain and those who don't aren't. Link to comment
Calm Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said: So in my opinion those who have distinct "black" features are under the curse of Cain and those who don't aren't. What about blacks who are not from Africa, but share some of the features such as dark skin? (Australians aborigines for examples). That would also mean brothers in the same family...one could hold the priesthood because he had so called “white” features and the other could not because he had “black” features. Kind of destroys the whole connection to curse of descendants of Cain. Edited February 3, 2021 by Calm Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, Calm said: What about blacks who are not from Africa, but share some of the features such as dark skin? (Australians aborigines for examples). I believe that the Australian aborigines are also descendants of Canaan and therefore Cain. I'm a believer in a young earth in which the continents were divided in the days of Peleg. So I believe that some Canannites (the ancestors of the aborigines) were broken off from the others when the Australian continent was broken off. Link to comment
LDS Watchman Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Calm said: Kind of destroys the whole connection to curse of descendants of Cain. Serious question. Do you believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor... all church presidents and apostles up to 1978 were racist bigots and that blacks are not the descendants of the cursed race of Canaanites in the scriptures? I'd like a candid answer. I think that's only fair considering how candid I've been in answering your questions. Edited February 3, 2021 by LDS Watchman Link to comment
Recommended Posts