I find this part of the statement from the Newsroom to be a little disingenuous...
People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church
Before the ban, I remember the sisters telling me that they were discouraged from tracting out people of colour, and that if they came across them then they were to leave a message with them and move on to the next house.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
Miss Taken wrote:I find this part of the statement from the Newsroom to be a little disingenuous...
People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church
Before the ban, I remember the sisters telling me that they were discouraged from tracting out people of colour, and that if they came across them then they were to leave a message with them and move on to the next house.
I've heard similar stories from people who went on missions in the early 70s. I imagine bringing a negro to the baptismal font wasn't a good way to make zone leader.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
consiglieri wrote:Then the Church is never bound by anything.
Well... yeah. What else is new?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
bcspace wrote:The doctrine, even prior to 1978 was still that we don't know why. For example, the 1969 FP statement:
From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man."
The 1949 statement didn't answer the question either.
Perhaps as time passes, the Veil grows thicker. Increased thread count may be the answer as to why we no longer have our past understanding.
moksha wrote:Perhaps as time passes, the Veil grows thicker. Increased thread count may be the answer as to why we no longer have our past understanding.
Blame it on Egyptian cotton... the original light cotton.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Skin color or ethnicity is never given as a reason for the Ban.
Well, they wouldn't have wanted to deny the preisthood to a white guy with a tan and sense of rhythm now would they. It is racist exactly because it is about "race".
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Tarski wrote:Well, they wouldn't have wanted to deny the preisthood to a white guy with a tan and sense of rhythm now would they. It is racist exactly because it is about "race".
And maybe jealousy? You know what they say about ... well... nevermind.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Tarski wrote:Well, they wouldn't have wanted to deny the preisthood to a white guy with a tan and sense of rhythm now would they. It is racist exactly because it is about "race".
And maybe jealousy? You know what they say about ... well... nevermind.
You know, it is not true about one's Priesthood being bigger.