Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let’s try to clean this mess up before it stains the carpet. First, it has NEVER, I am going to repeat that, NEVER been the official policy or position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that people of ANY color are cursed. Now, before anyone goes rushing to the internet and pulls random statements from former leaders of the Church indicating otherwise, one would be wise to understand such statements were not canon. Any statements made by former leaders regarding the status of African Americans were pure speculation and do NOT represent official Church policy. As a matter of record, there is NOTHING written explaining why African American males were denied the Priesthood. It is only known that the first Prophet of the Church pronounced they would not be ordained until a future time; however, African American males were ordained to the Priesthood prior to the declaration of the first Prophet, and their Priesthood remained in effect. I will say there is SPECULATION that African American males were denied the Priesthood because a promise of the Lord to Abraham had not been fulfilled. It is IMPORTANT to understand that ALL African Americans were NEVER denied membership in the Church.
Next, it WAS mainstream Christian Churches that justified slavery by calling ALL Africans descendants of Cain and were therefore cursed and less than human. NO modern Christian Church subscribes to such beliefs today unless it would be a white supremacy church.
Someone mentioned that he or she only sees white people in the Church. It is clear he or she is not looking close enough. Spanish is now the dominant language in the Church today, and Hispanics are the dominant portion of the Church population. The Church is also heavily populated by Pacific Islanders and Asians. Yes, the Tabernacle Choir is primarily populated by Caucasians, but its members come from Utah, which is primarily of a Caucasian makeup.
Lamanites were an ancient people of the Americas, who are documented in the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Book of Mormon states they were cursed with a dark appearance because of their gross disobedience to the Lord. No, any descendants of the Lamanites are not cursed.
The problem with all of this stuff is that some people with a little information continually spread inaccurate, distorted, or false information. If one wants accurate information about the LDS Church and its policies and practices, then seek the information from an official representative of the Church. Same applies to Catholicism, or any other religion. DO NOT get information from former disgruntled members of any religion or people who claim to know something about a particular Church.
If they weren't cursed then why would you need a declaration saying that the racial exclusion policy was to be lifted?
"Finally, on June 8, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced that while praying with the rest of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they had received a revelation that the racial exclusion policy was to be lifted. Immediately after the receipt of this new revelation, an official announcement of the revelation was prepared, and sent out to all of the various leaders of the Church. It was shortly thereafter read to, approved by and accepted as the word and will of the Lord, by a General Conference of the Church. Succeeding editions of the Doctrine and Covenants were printed with this announcement canonized and entitled as Official Declaration 2. This declaration reads, in part, "He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."
If they weren't cursed then why would you need a declaration saying that the racial exclusion policy was to be lifted?
"Finally, on June 8, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced that while praying with the rest of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they had received a revelation that the racial exclusion policy was to be lifted. Immediately after the receipt of this new revelation, an official announcement of the revelation was prepared, and sent out to all of the various leaders of the Church. It was shortly thereafter read to, approved by and accepted as the word and will of the Lord, by a General Conference of the Church. Succeeding editions of the Doctrine and Covenants were printed with this announcement canonized and entitled as Official Declaration 2. This declaration reads, in part, "He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."
it has NEVER, I am going to repeat that, NEVER been the official policy or position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that people of ANY color are cursed … As a matter of record, there is NOTHING written explaining why African American males were denied the Priesthood. It is only known that the first Prophet of the Church pronounced they would not be ordained until a future time
Not sure what the question is here. SergeantL was pretty clear in his explanation against the accusations that Mormon doctrine considered blacks to be cursed. Whether you accept that explanation is another matter.
As for the Church issuing an official declaration of policy change – how else would it make such a change?
Originally Posted by SergeantL As a matter of record, there is NOTHING written explaining why African American males were denied the Priesthood. It is only known that the first Prophet of the Church pronounced they would not be ordained until a future time; however, African American males were ordained to the Priesthood prior to the declaration of the first Prophet, and their Priesthood remained in effect.
Here is what scripture says about Priesthood in 2Peter:
2:4 So as you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but chosen and priceless in God’s sight, 2:5 you yourselves, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood and to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 2:6 For it says in scripture, “Look, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and priceless cornerstone, and whoever believes in him will never be put to shame.” 2:7 So you who believe see his value, but for those who do not believe, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, 2:8 and a stumbling-stone and a rock to trip over. They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 2:10 You once were not a people, but now you are God’s people. You were shown no mercy, but now you have received mercy.
The proclamation of Priesthood was given to all the saints.... no where does scripture support restriction upon believers in any manner. Clearly the stumbling stone finds its way into all faiths, but we are all priests, given the ability to present "spiritual gifts" to the Lord. Peter goes on to say "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do".
Anytime man's theology circumvents scripture, a very loud alarm should go off in your head... or as in Robbie the robot would say... Danger Will Robinson!... Danger!
Not sure what the question is here. SergeantL was pretty clear in his explanation against the accusations that Mormon doctrine considered blacks to be cursed. Whether you accept that explanation is another matter.
As for the Church issuing an official declaration of policy change – how else would it make such a change?
I'll be as clear as I can be:
Why do you need a public declaration against racial exclusion if you never had racial exclusion?
Answer: Because there was a policy of racial exclusion prior to the public declaration.
And what led to there being a policy of racial exclusion.. I dunno.. probably had to do with that darn curse.
So whether or not there was an "official curse".. it was alive and well in the racial exclusion.
So you are correct. I don't accept the explanation. Not because I have anything against mormons but because of the facts.
My question stands. Why do you need a public declaration against racial exclusion if you never had racial exclusion before? See Answer above.
Why do you need a public declaration against racial exclusion if you never had racial exclusion?
Answer: Because there was a policy of racial exclusion prior to the public declaration.
And what led to there being a policy of racial exclusion.. I dunno.. probably had to do with that darn curse.
So whether or not there was an "official curse".. it was alive and well in the racial exclusion.
So you are correct. I don't accept the explanation. Not because I have anything against mormons but because of the facts.
My question stands. Why do you need a public declaration against racial exclusion if you never had racial exclusion before? See Answer above.
No one is denying the policy existed, but the logic that leads to your conclusion is based on conjecture on your part. You may feel confident in your reasoning, as do others in their's. We won't be changing any opinions on this topic, which has been discussed frequently.
I'm off or the evening, but ponder a few rhetorical questions. At one point, most American Christian denominations supported slavery and segregation (note the LDS were always abolitionists, but this fact is always ignored). So what makes the LDS Church different?
Is it because it's policy changed in 1978, whereas many other churches changed in the 1960? How long is the statute of limitations? Is something that ended over 30 years ago still in the realm of culpability? What about Churches that changed their policies 40 years ago during the 1960's civil rights movement. Are they exonorated? Is the 10 or 15-year time frame material these days?
Or is this an example of critics holding the LDS Church to a double standard, because they are grasping at ways to besmirch what they see as a threat to there hegemony? What is the LDS policy today? Is today's policy somehow less relevant than that of the middle of the last century?
but the logic that leads to your conclusion is based on conjecture on your part
2. It isn't conjecture at all. Conjecture indicates that I'm somehow my inference is defective or without cause and that is simply incorrect. Is my opinion based on the circumstantial? I'd say so. Just remember.. circumstantial evidence can get you convicted in a court of law.
Quote:
You may feel confident in your reasoning, as do others in their's
3. I'm quite confident in my reasoning and I'm even more confident in others to reason their way to a different conclusion that isn't based on facts.
Quote:
We won't be changing any opinions on this topic, which has been discussed frequently
4. I'm not trying to change opinions. Just presenting information that is readily available online or elsewhere.
Quote:
(note the LDS were always abolitionists, but this fact is always ignored).
5. Interesting.. I'd love to see how the facts are determined beause Joseph Smith said:
"Are the Mormons abolitionists?" No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 29).
So when did they become abolitionists?
Quote:
Is it because it's policy changed in 1978 whereas many other churches changed in the 1960?
6. Yes.. that alone would suffice. Good thing they had nearly 20 years to mull it over.
Quote:
Or is this an example of critics holding the LDS Church to a double standard
7. What double standard? Joseph Smith said Mormons weren't abolitionists.
Furthermore he stated "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 217-218)."
Now.. in all fairness maybe Joseph Smith was an abolitionist but it wasn't against slavery. His words make that ever so clear.
See the difference is this. You are comparing a congregational act (i.e. churches that changed their laws in the 1940's during Civil Rights) to someone who proclaimed himself as a "Prophet". I'd be the very first person to say people mistranslate and misinterpet the Bible. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, this is coming from the FOUNDER of the church the basis of which the entire mormon church is predicated upon.
If they weren't cursed then why would you need a declaration saying that the racial exclusion policy was to be lifted?
I do not know how I can make this any clearer. You stated the Church believed that blacks were cursed. I have told you such is not true, and I have told you there is no place in Church Canon or policy where this is stated. I have told you the only information pertaining to this topic was received from the first Prophet Joseph Smith, who declared African American males were not to be ordained to the Priesthood until a later time. He made no mention as to why and made no statement regarding their worthiness or status before God. Furthermore, according to his declaration, African American Males were invited to join the Priesthood in 1978. I am not asking you to agree, I am simply telling you that no such belief in a curse existed in Church policy or Canon.
As Coolcats has written, no one is denying that African American males were excluded from holding the Priesthood, but NO ONE, save perhaps Joseph Smith and obviously God knows actually why. Next, this policy ONLY applied to African American males. It did NOT apply to any other persons of color or ethnicity. American Indians, Polynesians, Asians, Hispanics, and other males of color or distinct physical characteristics have always been ordained to the Priesthood. How long did it take mainstream Christianity to come around to this practice?
Next, do you wish to declare that the Church believes women to be cursed? We do NOT ordain women to the Priesthood nor will we ever. They are excluded because of their sex.
The Official Declaration by Spence W. Kimball was needed to declare to the world that the practice of excluding African American males from the Priesthood was no longer in effect in that it was common knowledge the Church did in fact prohibit African American males from holding Priesthood Office. Because much of the world then and today believed or believes this former practice involved all men of color, it was deemed necessary to explain that all worthy male members regardless of color or ethnicity were invited to the Priesthood.
There is no point in discussing this any further. I have been a member of the Church since before 1978 and because my God Parents were African American and I am Caucasian, I became acutely aware of all the issues surrounding this practice. It is as I have explained, and my extensive research into the topic has clearly shown me there was no belief in a curse, unworthiness, or inferior status of African American males by the Church. The most telling proof of this exists in the fact that the Church was abolitionist, and before you spring Joseph Smith's statement about not being abolitionist or not wanting the slaves to be free, the Chruch always voted as a block AGAINST slavery, which is one contributing factor for our troubles in Missouri and always invited African Americans to be members of the Church. If there was ever a belief by the Church that African Americans were cursed, the Church would have never actively sought their membership.
Last edited by SergeantL; 11-19-2007 at 07:58 PM..
2. It isn't conjecture at all. Conjecture indicates that I'm somehow my inference is defective or without cause and that is simply incorrect. Is my opinion based on the circumstantial? I'd say so. Just remember.. circumstantial evidence can get you convicted in a court of law.
3. I'm quite confident in my reasoning and I'm even more confident in others to reason their way to a different conclusion that isn't based on facts.
4. I'm not trying to change opinions. Just presenting information that is readily available online or elsewhere.
5. Interesting.. I'd love to see how the facts are determined beause Joseph Smith said:
"Are the Mormons abolitionists?" No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 29).
So when did they become abolitionists?
6. Yes.. that alone would suffice. Good thing they had nearly 20 years to mull it over.
7. What double standard? Joseph Smith said Mormons weren't abolitionists.
Furthermore he stated "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 217-218)."
Now.. in all fairness maybe Joseph Smith was an abolitionist but it wasn't against slavery. His words make that ever so clear.
See the difference is this. You are comparing a congregational act (i.e. churches that changed their laws in the 1940's during Civil Rights) to someone who proclaimed himself as a "Prophet". I'd be the very first person to say people mistranslate and misinterpet the Bible. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, this is coming from the FOUNDER of the church the basis of which the entire mormon church is predicated upon.
See the difference?
Prost!
Ok -- you are playing the context and semantics game. Perhaps it would be better to say "anti-slavery." The abolitionist movement at the time was very radical, and in many cases encouraged violence.Mormons did not hold
slaves. They voted against slavery in a consistent block. Thus it was possible for many moderates to be both anti-abolitionist and anti-slavery.
Maybe he did say some things that seem insensitive to us to day. But guess what -- so did everyone else in the middle 19th century. So if you are going to cull anti-mormon literature to cast Joseph Smith and the Mormons in a bad light, I'm sure others could do the same with almost any other religion of the time.
That's what bugs me about anti-Mormon literature. They grasp at whatever they can find and then repeat it ad naseum for an echo chamer effect. But any quote that doesn't fit their agenda is never given the light of day. Expanding on the quote you provided above:
Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.
Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization."
Reads a bit differently with the additional context doesn't it? If anything he is trying to stave off racial tension with that statement, not trying to isolate blacks to a third-world existance. Like SeargentL, I'm going to leave it at that, because we'll just go in circles all night.
Last edited by coolcats; 11-19-2007 at 08:49 PM..
Reason: spelling
most religions in america were more racist then the mormans ever were,one of my great great great grandfathers was a methodist minister and a slave owner and saw no moral dilema with the equation.most of the slave traders were spanish catholics or dutch protestants.most of the buyers and owners were protestant christians,so why the holier than thou attitude?there is much in most of our countries and churches histories to be proud of but all groups have at least some blemishes in their past,be they racism,antisemitism,or the persecution of those who held different beliefs.some of these things lasted well into the 20th century and for a few still exist today.many ordained baptist ministers were also kukluxklan leaders when i was young,and i'm not 'that' old.fortunately no mainstream religion widely preaches that trash today and people of other faiths should look at the history of their own denomination before throwing stones at the mormans
I do not know how I can make this any clearer. You stated the Church believed that blacks were cursed. I have told you such is not true, and I have told you there is no place in Church Canon or policy where this is stated. I have told you the only information pertaining to this topic was received from the first Prophet Joseph Smith, who declared African American males were not to be ordained to the Priesthood until a later time. He made no mention as to why and made no statement regarding their worthiness or status before God. Furthermore, according to his declaration, African American Males were invited to join the Priesthood in 1978. I am not asking you to agree, I am simply telling you that no such belief in a curse existed in Church policy or Canon.
As Coolcats has written, no one is denying that African American males were excluded from holding the Priesthood, but NO ONE, save perhaps Joseph Smith and obviously God knows actually why. Next, this policy ONLY applied to African American males. It did NOT apply to any other persons of color or ethnicity. American Indians, Polynesians, Asians, Hispanics, and other males of color or distinct physical characteristics have always been ordained to the Priesthood. How long did it take mainstream Christianity to come around to this practice?
Next, do you wish to declare that the Church believes women to be cursed? We do NOT ordain women to the Priesthood nor will we ever. They are excluded because of their sex.
The Official Declaration by Spence W. Kimball was needed to declare to the world that the practice of excluding African American males from the Priesthood was no longer in effect in that it was common knowledge the Church did in fact prohibit African American males from holding Priesthood Office. Because much of the world then and today believed or believes this former practice involved all men of color, it was deemed necessary to explain that all worthy male members regardless of color or ethnicity were invited to the Priesthood.
There is no point in discussing this any further. I have been a member of the Church since before 1978 and because my God Parents were African American and I am Caucasian, I became acutely aware of all the issues surrounding this practice. It is as I have explained, and my extensive research into the topic has clearly shown me there was no belief in a curse, unworthiness, or inferior status of African American males by the Church. The most telling proof of this exists in the fact that the Church was abolitionist, and before you spring Joseph Smith's statement about not being abolitionist or not wanting the slaves to be free, the Chruch always voted as a block AGAINST slavery, which is one contributing factor for our troubles in Missouri and always invited African Americans to be members of the Church. If there was ever a belief by the Church that African Americans were cursed, the Church would have never actively sought their membership.
Well this is an open forum where I tend to believe most people would like to be further educated on topics they don't fully understand. You said you have done extensive research on the subject and you have concluded that there wasn't a curse. Can you fill us in on the research?
I spent 5 minutes finding this:
Preaching in 1859, at the October Conference of the LDS Church, Brigham Young declared:
Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. . . . How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed
Maybe I have this wrong.. maybe I don't. I'm not LDS... but let me build my case..
1. Mr. Young States the race will endure a dreadful curse and can never hold the priesthood
2. In 1978 the ban on black (males?) in the priesthood is "lifted".
1 + 2 = Church thought there was a curse.. (of course only in my opinion)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Priesthood
