DiscussMormonism.com

Yippy Skippy – the Mormons are getting together to celebrate the day their God stopped being a racist pig.

http://www.sltrib.com/LDS/ci_9431806

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will host a celebration of the 1978 revelation ending the ban on blacks being ordained to the church's all-male priesthood

Thomas S. Monson and Apostle Boyd K. Packer, who were among Genesis' organizers when the group was established in 1971, were scheduled to attend and speak but are not on the program now.

Genesis had a limited number of tickets set aside for Genesis members, and those tickets have all been committed. They will be distributed on Sunday, June 1, at 7 p.m. at the Genesis meetinghouse, 6710 South 1300 East, Midvale, and at the Genesis Picnic on Saturday, June 7.

Next month, Mormon Cult members will be celebrating the day that the Mormon God said that Polygamy was BAD.

Later, members will celebrate the day that Boyd K. Packer called the penis a factory that must not be touched. Packer will be on hand signing Mark E. Peterson “Tie Your Hand To The Bedpost” pamphlets (Note: FOR MEN ONLY). Electronic pins with Gordon B. Hinckley saying “I Don’t Know That We Teach That” will be readily available.

I'm not getting this at all.

We are led by the only true prophet of God on this earth. After blacks had had legal equality for 15 years, that prophet finally succumbed to social pressures and in 1978 he followed the evil world's lead by giving equal opportunity to blacks.

Let's draw a lot of public attention to this fact now that it's been 30 years since our prophet decided to follow the world. Why 30 years? Why now? Why ever toot your horn about something so shameful as 150 years of racism using God as an excuse?

While once again we are subjected to Infymus's infantile spew I must say I find it odd that the Church would observe this in such a way and draw attention to the ending of what seems like a bad policy and practice.

Jason Bourne wrote:While once again we are subjected to Infymus's infantile spew I must say I find it odd that the Church would observe this in such a way and draw attention to the ending of what seems like a bad policy and practice.

Maybe that's why Monson and Packer pulled out. I agree, there's no particularly good reason to point out for everyone that it was only 30 years ago that the LDS church stopped descriminating against blacks for no good reason.

I say no good reason because they've all disavowed the reason that used to be given, ie: that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence. Once you eliminate all the "I don't know that we teach that" reasons, you're left with pretty much no reason at all.

So, the LDS church banned blacks from the priesthood because God said so. We don't know when God said so, since there's no record of any revelation to any Mormon Prophet to that effect, but he must have said so anyhow, because the alternative would be that men, not under the divine guidance of any God, banned blacks from the priesthood because they were racists.

I've heard that there is documentation that black men DID hold the priesthood while Joseph Smith was a prophet. Does anyone have information on when this changed? From what Brigham Young stated in the JoD, obviously, it was during his term as prophet that this changed.

liz3564 wrote:I've heard that there is documentation that black men DID hold the priesthood while Joseph Smith was a prophet. Does anyone have information on when this changed? From what Brigham Young stated in the JoD, obviously, it was during his term as prophet that this changed.

The Black man you're referring to is Elijah Abel, who was ordained when Joseph Smith was alive. Later, BY (I believe) prevented Abel from doing temple work for his deceased wife. Also, oddly enough, there is evidence (published by the Tanners, of all people!) that Abel's progeny (his grandchildren, If I recall correctly) were ordained into the priesthood. It is unclear what the doctrinal logic is/was behind all of this. I should also add that the Church has never formally rescinded the old ban on miscegenation. I think most Internet Mormons assume that this "vanished" with the lifting of the priesthood ban, but no formal announcement was ever made by the Brethren (and the scriptural rationale behind the "no interracial marriage" doctrine is different from the priesthood ban).

Jason Bourne wrote:While once again we are subjected to Infymus's infantile spew I must say I find it odd that the Church would observe this in such a way and draw attention to the ending of what seems like a bad policy and practice.

It's childish, right Bourne, because I don't use "pretty language" to define your leaders. Because I haven't got any respect for them. Because I don't give a damn what Mormons think. Right?

Sorry, I am not going to use pretty language to describe men who prey on people for money, power and control.

Get used to it. Call it infantile all you want. The same could be said for your pot shots and your personal attacks.

It was probably a policy Joseph used to avoid inflaming tensions in Missouri (too many rumors that the Mormons were going to incite uprisings among the slave). Brigham Young came up with a rationale. Lorenzo Snow later said that he didn't know if the ban came by revelation or if it was policy. Brigham Young's rationale originally was that they were neutral in the War in Heaven but this is in contradiction to Joseph saying there were no neutrals. Later the two melded into the 'less valiant' theory. It has mostly died off. In my life in the Church I've only once heard racist garbage once (in Utah) when a member told me and several others (we were 16-18) how blessed we are that we are American and white. We looked each other, rolled our eyes, and walked away. The man looked like he was on his last legs. He's probably dead.

Joseph was more liberal towards blacks in what he said then most abolitionists. My guess is that Joseph instituted it as a general policy to avoid problems and Brigham Young in loyal zeal assumed it was revelation and kept it going.

Infymus wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote:While once again we are subjected to Infymus's infantile spew I must say I find it odd that the Church would observe this in such a way and draw attention to the ending of what seems like a bad policy and practice.

It's childish, right Bourne, because I don't use "pretty language" to define your leaders. Because I haven't got any respect for them. Because I don't give a damn what Mormons think. Right?

Sorry, I am not going to use pretty language to describe men who prey on people for money, power and control.

Get used to it. Call it infantile all you want. The same could be said for your pot shots and your personal attacks.

It's childish because that's the way children talk about things they dislike.

The Nehor wrote:My guess is that Joseph instituted it as a general policy to avoid problems and Brigham Young in loyal zeal assumed it was revelation and kept it going.

Do you realize that you're implying that Brigham Young led the church astray?