Women recieving the priesthood

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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."

Cain as a person is irrelevant.

1) Canaan and Cain are unrelated words in Hebrew.

2) Any descendants of Cain not on the ark should have died in the flood if we follow a literal reading of Genesis. 

3) The curse put on Canaan was because Ham was dodgy, not because of anything to do with Canaan specifically (like inherited race-related skin colour).

It's pretty clear that "sons of..." is not intended to have a literal genetic family tree meaning.

Edited February 3, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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.

 I think they had racist beliefs.  I have some emotional reactions that are racist unfortunately and I try to control them to the best of my awareness, so I don’t see myself or anyone else as inherently superior morally speaking simply because some ideas church presidents believed have been demonstrated to be nonsense (never going to the moon, for example)or historically unfounded, misinterpretations of scripture (for example, I have never been able to find any ancient belief that the scripture referring to Peleg and the division of the earth was anything besides a division of nations before science figured out land masses actually moved over time, so I believe that interpreting that as land masses is incorrect).  I think it is what we do with God’s law and doctrine that he has given us that determines how we will be judged, which will take into account what ideas we absorbed from our social environment as children and adults.

 I think race is a relatively recent social construct and even talking about it in such a fashion implies racist assumptions that are not scientifically or psychologically grounded.  I don’t believe Israelites or ancient Jews or Lehities understood “race” as modern (as in the past number of centuries) European thought constructs it.

 I do not believe black Africans are descendants of Canaanities anymore than I am...which I may be as I have Jewish ancestors (great great grandfather iirc, my maiden surname is Jewish) which means one of my Jewish ancestors could have had a Canaanite parent at some point since they lived in the same land.

Cain and Canaanites may sound the same in English, but they are not from the same root.  And if the issue is the blood of Cain came through Ham’s line, why is only one of his sons’ bloodline cursed and not all of them?

Having racist assumptions does not make someone bad unless one chooses to justify evil actions by those ideas (which is the better person...the one who grew up thinking whites were superior and therefore chose to serve for their lifetime those they see as needing more help, the less blessed because the white with racist assumptions also believed the first shall be last, etc..... or the person who sees every person their equal and equally ignores anyone’s needs except for their own because they can’t be bothered?).

I appreciate you, Watchman, answering my questions even though they may add to a possible banning.   I also think you are very wrong and it is false doctrine, but at least the part you were answering questions for me...I hope that doesn’t get you banned. If it does, I should be banned as well for intentionally leading the conversation that way. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

6 hours 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?

This is a lie.

You attribute words uttered by someone else to me. You put my name on words I never said. Go back and see who said them.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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.

You put my name on a quote box with words I never said.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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. 

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. 

This was repudiated before I would join the church, and I would never have joined if it hadn't been.

[AtlanticMike]

10 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm sure the brethren made these changes because they wanted to save the church. There was great external and internal pressure to make these changes. 

But I don't think these changes saved the church. I believe both were compromises with the world. 

But all is not lost. God knew this would happen and has a plan in place to correct the situation eventually.

Wow! Got up this morning and started reading and thought, dang, this conversation took a crazy turn last night. For the record, I brought up the 1949 first presidency letter and the current view of the church to show that our church is willing to make changes and right wrongs  by acknowledging them. I was using the conparison to show that there's a chance women will receive the priesthood kinda the same way. I was hoping people would see it as a positive, not negative. As far as blacks and the priesthood, I see it totally opposite of the way you do. I think if Joseph wasn't murdered, there's a good chance he would've given the priesthood to black men. So yes, I think Brigham messed it up. We need to stop thinking prophets,who are men, cant make mistakes. 

    

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You put my name on a quote box with words I never said.

It is a function of the board we all need to be careful about especially if someone has immediately quoted the person we are quoting right underneath and we are going back and forth splitting up the full post.  I have made the mistake at least once, maybe more. I have seen a number of others do it too. 
 

Watchman, I am guessing, posted the first quote from the original post and thus the right name showed up. But he didn’t noticed for the second quote that he was quoting the next post’s quote and not the original...when one does that, the quoter’s name who created the post is used rather than the original writer. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

think if Joseph wasn't murdered, there's a good chance he would've given the priesthood to black men.

He already had....see Elijah Able/Abel for the most notable. There were others as well, but I believe there is the best discussion for him, including even though he never got his endowments (I assume they were quickly done in 78), he served missions and iirc his priesthood was allowed to be given to his son(s) and grandson(s). 

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2015/03/25/was-elijah-ables-ordained-by-joseph-smith-a-response-to-w-paul-reeve/

See this blog for several good articles on the subject. Russell is a good friend who has worked hard and immersed himself in the subject and related areas, a very good scholar and a gentleman in my view.  While he has his biases, he is open about them and it does not interefere detrimentally imo with his work. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Calm

[AtlanticMike]

7 hours ago, Islander said:

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. 

Never said there's current earth doctrine to back up my claims, actually I've been consistent in saying I think current earth doctrine wont play a role, nothing wrong with that, continuing revelation is a great thing.The difference between your view and my view on this subject is your looking to the past to help justify what will happen in the future while I'm using present day events to determine what's going to happen in the future. I'm starting to see this subject really comes down to how people perceive what a "revelation" is. I've never thought all revelations are the prophet and God sitting at a table in the highest room in the temple. I think most are the brethren talking through situations and using the spirit to guide them. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Calm]

6 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

believe that the Australian aborigines are also descendants of Canaan and therefore Cain. 

But only those who look black, correct?  Even if blood relatives of the person who looks black, the nonblack appearing relative would not be a descendant of either Canaan or Cain. (Not trying to mock, mean to clarify as you are the first I have seen use this idea recently)
 

What of any descendants of Cain not through the Canaan line? Such as the brothers of Canaan?  Have they escaped the curse?

Is it possible to have what appear to be black features and not be cursed?  For example, I have a niece who has hair and skin when tanned that makes her seem possibly mixed race if I compare her to a friend of mine in high school, but when I see her parents and grandparents, it was just the random dna combo.  If my extended relatives from that side have any black ancestors, it is over 500 years ago I believe. 

Is dark skin enough or must there be other attributes to affirm “blackness” as I have another niece who goes “mocha” in summer as she describes it, but is Asian.

I am trying to follow the logic of your assumptions, what they imply and it doesn’t appear to be consistent with what is known. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I think if Joseph wasn't murdered, there's a good chance he would've given the priesthood to black men.

In addition to the link Calm provided, we also have this, which quotes Official General Church Minutes from 1847:

Quote

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”

 

[AtlanticMike]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In addition to the link Calm provided, we also have this, which quotes Official General Church Minutes from 1847:

 

Thank you for that link. That's exactly what I was talking about. 

[LDS Watchman]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

 I think they had racist beliefs.  

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

 I do not believe black Africans are descendants of Canaanities

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I also think you are very wrong and it is false doctrine,

I appreciate you giving me a candid answer.

So, essentially you believe that there is no connection between blacks and the curse of Cain and the curse put upon Canaan and his posterity, and that the entire doctrine as taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc was a false doctrine taught by racist men?

I cannot accept this. I believe Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were correct. I've spent a lot of time studying this out, because I wanted to get to the bottom of the race and the priesthood issue. I'm 100% convinced that the orginal teaching about blacks in the church is correct. 

I know that puts me in the minority today. Our current PC woke culture hase no place for this doctrine. And if it gets me banned from this forum, I'll understand. 

 

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

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. 

BY has been quoted as applying the “one drop” rule, which is much, much more than distinct features. 
 

Quote

Young said that “any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood, & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ.”

 

[AtlanticMike]

9 hours 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. 

First, I disagree with lds watchmens stance on blacks and the priesthood, but canceling him over it in my opinion isn't what we should be doing. His view is still held by a small percentage of members, and the Brethren could take bigger steps to help people see we're practicing what we preach. For example, since 1978 there has been roughly 65 general conference talks annually. That's 65 talks times 43 years which equals 2,795 talks. I cant think of one black woman that has ever given a general conference talk. I think there has been 3 black men who have given a total of 6 or 7 general conference talks. Doesn't look that inclusive when written out does it?

Also, if there's anyone at church headquarters monitoring this board, hello, I hope your doing well, and for christ sake, put a black female at the podium at general conference, gee whiz.

Edited February 3, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[LDS Watchman]

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It's pretty clear that "sons of..." is not intended to have a literal genetic family tree meaning.

Here's what Joseph Smith taught. Judge for yourself:

From the Messenger and Advocate

Brother Oliver Cowdery:

Dear Sir—This place having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called abolitionists; if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the southern public, relative to the views and sentiments I believe, as an individual, and am able to say, from personal knowledge, are the feelings of others, you are at liberty to give them publicity in the columns of the Advocate. I am prompted to this course in consequence, in one respect, of many elders having gone into the Southern States, besides, there now being many in that country who have already embraced the fulness of the gospel, as revealed through the book of Mormon,—having learned, by experience, that the enemy of truth does not slumber, nor cease his exertions to bias the minds of communities against the servants of the Lord, by stiring up the indignation of men upon all matters of importance or interest.

Thinking, perhaps, that the sound might go out, that “an abolitionist” had held forth several times to this community, and that the public feeling was not aroused to create mobs or disturbances, leaving the impression that all he said was concurred in, and received as gospel and the word of salvation. I am happy to say, that no violence or breach of the public peace was attempted, so far from this, that all except a very few, attended to their own avocations and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls.

I am aware, that many who profess to preach the gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the south, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflection of all men, and especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair States of the South, and set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue.

No one will pretend to say, that the people of the free states are as capable of knowing the evils of slavery as those who hold them. If slavery is an evil, who, could we expect, would first learn it? Would the people of the free states, or would the slave states? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact. If the fact was learned first by those immediately concerned, who would be more capable than they of prescribing a remedy?

And besides, are not those who hold slaves, persons of ability, discernment and candor? Do they not expect to give an account at the bar of God for their conduct in this life? It may, no doubt, with propriety be said, that many who hold slaves live without the fear of God before their eyes, and, the same may be said of many in the free states. Then who is to be the judge in this matter?

So long, then, as those of the free states are not interested in the freedom of the slaves, any other than upon the mere principles of equal rights and of the gospel, and are ready to admit that there are men of piety who reside in the South, who are immediately concerned, and until they complain, and call for assistance, why not cease their clamor, and no further urge the slave to acts of murder, and the master to vigorous discipline, rendering both miserable, and unprepared to pursue that course which might otherwise lead them both to better their condition? I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.

And further, what benefit will it ever be to the slave for persons to run over the free states, and excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands who understand nothing relative to their circumstances or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never travelled in the South, and scarcely seen a negro in all their life. How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons—boys and others who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me. And when I see persons in the free states signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an array of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South! What can divide our Union sooner, God only knows!

After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then, to name certain passages from the bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!

“And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.— God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”—Gen, 8:25, 26, 27.

Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel.

I must not pass over a notice of the history of Abraham, of whom so much is spoken in the scriptures. If we can credit the account, God conversed with him from time to time, and directed him in the way he should walk, saying, “I am the Almighty God: walk before me and be thou perfect.” Paul says that the gospel was preached to this man. And it is further said, that he had sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants, &c. From this I conclude, that if the principle had been an evil one, in the midst of the communications made to this holy man, he would have been instructed differently. And if he was instructed against holding men-servants and maid-servants, he never ceased to do it; consequently must have incurred the displeasure of the Lord and thereby lost his blessings—which was not the fact.

Some may urge, that the names, man-servant and maid-servant, only mean hired persons who were at liberty to leave their masters or employers at any time. But we can easily settle this point by turning to the history of Abraham’s descendants, when governed by a law given from the mouth of the Lord himself. I know that when an Israelite had been brought into servitude in consequence of debt, or otherwise, at the seventh year he went from the task of his former master or employer; but to no other people or nation was this granted in the law to Israel. And if, after a man had served six years, he did not wish to be free, then the master was to bring him unto the judges, boar his ear with an awl, and that man was “to serve him forever.” The conclusion I draw from this, is that this people were led and governed by revelation and if such a law was wrong God only is to be blamed, and abolitionists are not responsible.

Now, before proceeding any farther, I wish to ask one or two questions:—Were the apostles men of God, and did they preach the gospel? I have no  doubt but those who believe the bible will admit these facts, and that they also knew the mind and will of God concerning what they wrote to the churches which they were instrumental in building up.

This being admitted, the matter can be put to rest without much argument, if we look at a few items in the New Testament. Paul says:

“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men-pleasers: but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart: With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” Eph. 6:5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

Here is a lesson which might be profitable for all to learn, and the principle upon which the church was anciently governed, is so plainly set forth, that an eye of truth might see and understand. Here, certainly are represented the master and servant; and so far from instructions to the servant to leave his master, he is commanded to be in obedience, as unto the Lord: the master in turn is required to treat them with kindness before God, understanding at the same time that he is to give an account.— The hand of fellowship is not withdrawn from him in consequence of having servants.

The same writer, in his first epistle to Timothy, the sixth chapter, and the five first verses, says:

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren: but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness: he is proud, knowing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

This is so perfectly plain, that I see no need of comment. The scripture stands for itself, and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the abolitionists in the world.

Before closing this communication, I beg leave to drop a word to the travelling elders: You know, brethren, that great responsibility rests upon you, and that you are accountable to God for all you teach the world. In my opinion, you will do well to search the book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the church concerning masters and servants. All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted: and then, teach the master to use them with kindness, remembering that they are accountable to God, and that servants are bound to serve their masters, with singleness of heart, without murmuring. I do, most sincerely hope, that no one who is authorized from this church to preach the gospel, will so far depart from the scripture as to be found stirring up strife and sedition against our brethren of the South. Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.

Praying that God may spare you to do much good in this life, I subscribe myself your brother in the Lord.

JOSEPH SMITH, jr.

 

"Letter to Oliver Cowdery, circa 9 April 1836," p. [289-291], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 20, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a lie.

You attribute words uttered by someone else to me. You put my name on words I never said. Go back and see who said them.

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a lie.

You attribute words uttered by someone else to me. You put my name on words I never said. Go back and see who said them.

You're confused. I only quoted you once and that was in regards to your science magazine quote. 

Please retract your false accusation against me.

[Calm]

Complicating the race construct...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/race-east-jackson-ohio-appalachia-white-black

Quote

Officials in Waverly created East Jackson by corralling any newcomer they deemed to be black because of their appearance, or by second-class status because they were laborers or housekeepers, into the smaller town. Some forced to stay in East Jackson were not black, but because they all lived in East Jackson, grew up together and were treated as black by law, a community that identified as black took root. They married across racial lines, and had multiracial children. Over generations, as fewer black people sought this area out, black heritage thinned out. But black identity did not....

 

 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

We need to stop thinking prophets,who are men, cant make mistakes. 

Does this only apply to past prophets or is it okay to believe the current ones are making mistakes?

When the teachings of past prophets contradict the present teachings, both can't be right. One group is most definitely in error. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

 

You're confused. I only quoted you once and that was in regards to your science magazine quote. 

Please retract your false accusation against me.

You didn’t quote him, his name is on the second quote of peacefully. It is a glitch of the board. 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am trying to follow the logic of your assumptions, what they imply and it doesn’t appear to be consistent with what is known. 

I'm not making any assumptions. You act is if the priesthood ban and all the teachings on blacks being a cursed race are my idea. They are not. I simply believe what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. and the scriptures teach about it. 

All I have to offer to your questions/concerns is my personal opinions. And like I said I'm not really worried about these things. I trust the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young and that's good enough for me. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by LDS Watchman

[LDS Watchman]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

BY has been quoted as applying the “one drop” rule, which is much, much more than distinct features.

I think that in this instance Brigham took it a tad to far. He sometimes used rhetoric that was a little bit over the top to make a point. His point in this case being that blacks cannot hold the priesthood even if they are of a mixed race.

[AtlanticMike]

11 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Does this only apply to past prophets or is it okay to believe the current ones are making mistakes?

When the teachings of past prophets contradict the present teachings, both can't be right. One group is most definitely in error. 

We all learn from mistakes, even prophets. In talking to calm you said you trust Joseph and Brigham, that's great,  but they can be wrong. Alot of people back then including them, thought 6 foot tall people who dressed like Quakers lived on the moon, do you believe that's still a possibility? I'm just offering my opinion in Hope's you can see these men weren't super heroes. Neither are the prophets of our time.

[Peacefully]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

You didn’t quote him, his name is on the second quote of peacefully. It is a glitch of the board. 

I looked back at my posts and still don’t see this glitch. Can you refer me to the specific post so I can correct it? 

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

First, I disagree with lds watchmens stance on blacks and the priesthood, but canceling him over it in my opinion isn't what we should be doing. His view is still held by a small percentage of members, and the Brethren could take bigger steps to help people see we're practicing what we preach. For example, since 1978 there has been roughly 65 general conference talks annually. That's 65 talks times 43 years which equals 2,795 talks. I cant think of one black woman that has ever given a general conference talk. I think there has been 3 black men who have given a total of 6 or 7 general conference talks. Doesn't look that inclusive when written out does it?

Also, if there's anyone at church headquarters monitoring this board, hello, I hope your doing well, and for christ sake, put a black female at the podium at general conference, gee whiz.

Good luck with reason but it sounds like he is fully entrenched in his racist beliefs.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Peacefully