Joseph Smiths arrest record?

[_Markk]

By allowing African Americans and every other nationality to hold the priesthood and participate in everything the Church has to offer, that is a physical form of formal retraction

.

Who was not allowed authority besides people with Black Skin to hold the priesthood? You make it sound so....white. So by finally allowing the blacks to hold the priesthood, and "physically" retracting the ban, there is no need for an apology...why Simon? why doesn't the church need to apologize...if you don't answer this question I will take it as because they believe they did nothing wrong.

No one knows. My personal belief was that it was a product of the time and should have been done away with a lot sooner than it had.

So the Church teaches a doctrine that denys authority based on race and skin color, for 150 years and they don't know why they did it? The General leadership for 150 years upholds this bigoted stance and they just do it not knowing why?

Is the Book of Mormon correct in it's teaching that God gave as a sign of a curse dark skin to people? 5th request?

Let me know when you want to discuss the FAIR article?

[_Markk]

Simon,

I read the FAIR article...

"...Nephi "beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations."

References to filthiness are not an allusion to skin color, but clearly refer to a spiritual state of being "filthy before God" rather than a physical characteristic. Similarly, both the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants use the term "filthy" in reference to sinners.

What is Tvedtnes doing here? He actually quotes the troublesome reference to 'dark' skin, along with a reference to 'filthy', then completely ignores the fact that 'dark' was used, and then proceeds to offer his defense of the word 'filthy'. This appears to me to be a classic example of 'straw man': Create a bogus issue and make a spectacle of proving it baseless.

Simon, the teaching and belief that ungodly people are marked with a skin of darkness is part of the web and woof of LDS culture and doctrine, despite Tvedtnes' disingenuous attempts claim otherwise.

The article also ignores Alma 3:6, which contridicts his opinion.

[_Darth J]

By allowing African Americans and every other nationality to hold the priesthood and participate in everything the Church has to offer, that is a physical form of formal retraction.

How exactly does one "physically retract" an idea?

Can you provide an example of the Church verbally repudiating the doctrine that people were born black because of something they did in the pre-mortal existence that made God have them born in the lineage of Cain so they would not have the priesthood in this life?

No one knows.

I suggest you inform yourself of what the Church taught prior to 1978 before pontificating about "we don't know." Unless you are going to claim to be a more informed source on this issue than someone who worked for church education during that time (and such a claim from you would not surprise me).

Maybe you could start with this project of informing yourself by looking at what was taught in General Conference. For example:

Elder George F. Richards
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, April 1939

Punishment of Those Not Valiant

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin.

But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom.

What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm. he Lord, through one of his servants, addressing the angel of the church of the Laodiceans, said:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou were cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

To members of the Church I would ask, are any of us of that class today-lukewarm, indifferent and neutral-a lesson to be learned from the experiences of others who have gone before. I firmly believe that God had something to do with the recording of these events, and having them preserved and handed down to us from generation to generation, that we might read, and reading, profit thereby. We are under direct command of the Lord to search the scriptures, where these things are contained. We have been admonished in this conference so to do.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, April 1939

It is written in our own revelations that only those that can abide the celestial law can endure celestial glory. As we sow so shall we reap. We are reaping now, here on the earth. Blessed and fortunate are we, the sons of Joseph, the descendants of Israel, for we are reaping the consequence of our righteousness before ever we lived on this earth. Just as Brother George F. Richards has indicated that our poor benighted negro brethren are suffering the consequence of their sowing at some other time and place, so as certainly shall we hereafter reap what we are sowing here and now.

President George F. Richards
President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, October 1947

The Negro race have been forbidden the priesthood, and the higher temple blessings, presumably because of their not having been valiant while in the spirit. It does not pay to be anything but valiant.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard.
(President of Northwestern States Mission.)
Conference Reports, April 1915


My brethren and sisters, we are here reaping the reward of our, former labors, and we are going hereafter to reap the consequences of our lives and works here. We know, from the doctrines that we have received, that men and women have existed before coming into this life, for countless ages, and that we have been developing certain qualities, and the reason we are separated into great classes, as the Negro race and the other races on the earth, is not a matter of caprice. God did not take three beautiful children yesterday morning, and say to one, You go to the Negro woman, and to another one, You go to that Chinese mother, and to another, You go down to that beautiful Christian home. In my opinion, there were classes and races, and separation into different groups and conditions before we came to this world, and all are getting what they are entitled to receive here. But this is as far as we will travel together, for after this life, some will get a celestial glory, and some a terrestrial glory, and some a telestial, and we will no longer journey in a great class, or in a great company, made up of all classes. I believe that, while there will be classes in the spheres to which we will belong, we shall be grouped on separate planets. If we comply with all requirements we will be prepared to go into the highest places for further advancement, and that is celestial glory, and it is gained by obedience to celestial law. The celestial abode will be upon this redeemed earth, for God has declared that it will fulfill the purpose for which He has created it, and it will no longer need to have the light of the sun by day nor moon and stars by night, but will have power to emit its own light. It shall be the home of those who overcome, and who have kept the law, and who have measured up to all the requirements.

My personal belief was that it was a product of the time and should have been done away with a lot sooner than it had.

A similar question could be asked about almost any religion, including the Unitarian Church.

Does the Unitarian Church claim to be the restored church of Jesus Christ that is allegedly led by living prophets and apostles? Or are you conceding that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is simply another man-made church that teaches man-made ideas?

[_beefcalf]

Simon,

Not to be overly technical, I might be willing to grant you the point that the 'church is not racist', if you will likewise grant that very many of the most important figures in LDS history very obviously were.

What is your take on Ezra Taft Benson's overt support of teachings, positions and arguments which denigrate black people? It might be possible to dismiss Mark E. Peterson and the horrific things he said over and over again, but Benson was the Prophet. Would God really, really, call, as his only mouthpiece to the entire Earth, a man who harbored such hatred for so many dark-skinned people? The very same argument can be made with Brigham Young.

You've spoken here, quite frequently as of late, about your problems with bigotry. How do you square Young and Benson's overt bigotry with (I assume) your faith that they were called of God?

[_Darth J]

Simon,

Not to be overly technical, I might be willing to grant you the point that the 'church is not racist', if you will likewise grant that very many of the most important figures in LDS history very obviously were.

What is your take on Ezra Taft Benson's overt support of teachings, positions and arguments which denigrate black people? It might be possible to dismiss Mark E. Peterson and the horrific things he said over and over again, but Benson was the Prophet. Would God really, really, call, as his only mouthpiece to the entire Earth, a man who harbored such hatred for so many dark-skinned people? The very same argument can be made with Brigham Young.

You've spoken here, quite frequently as of late, about your problems with bigotry. How do you square Young and Benson's overt bigotry with (I assume) your faith that they were called of God?

Why do you think it is possible to blithely dismiss the teachings of an apostle (Mark E. Petersen) who is a prophet, seer and revelator, holds the sealing power, and is called to be a special witness of Jesus Christ to the world?

EDIT: And Ezra Taft Benson was an apostle when he shared his famous talk in General Conference about how the civil rights movement was a communist conspiracy.

For those who need to inform themselves a little more about the teachings of the Church (yes, Simon, that's you), the talk to which I refer was in the October 1967 General Conference.

P.S. I have said twice in this thread that Simon Belmont needs to inform himself, but I am willing to allow that he is deliberately misrepresenting the teachings and statements of the LDS Church and its leaders in the grandest tradition of apologists.

[_beefcalf]

HA!

Good point, Darth, but, no, I don't so easily absolve him of these sins. This is anticipation of the whole 'speaking as a man' argument.

I should probably have said, "It might be possible for you to dismiss Mark E. Peterson..."

For me, the things widely spoken of by Young, Benson and Peterson and many other of 'the Lord's anointed', are proof positive that they cannot be the apostles and prophets of a loving God that they claim to be.

[_Darth J]

HA!

Good point, Darth, but, no, I don't so easily absolve him of these sins. This is anticipation of the whole 'speaking as a man' argument.

I should probably have said, "It might be possible for you to dismiss Mark E. Peterson..."

For me, the things widely spoken of by Young, Benson and Peterson and many other of 'the Lord's anointed', are proof positive that they cannot be the apostles and prophets of a loving God that they claim to be.

Re: Speaking as a man.

Let us consult the Articles of Faith of Mormon Apologetics.

4. A prophet is only a prophet only when acting as such. If a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve is giving a sermon to church members or speaking in general conference, he is not entitled to an automatic presumption that he is acting as a prophet. If a prophet or apostle has taught something that now seems embarrassing, is controverted by external evidence, and/or is inconsistent with an apologetic theory, he was a priori speculating and/or speaking only as a man.

[_why me]

The LDS teaching that black skin is the sign of a curse from God, and LDS members like yourself not coming to grips with this and completely unable to discuss it...= bigotry or okay you tell me Simon...?

Was Jesus a bigot? It seems so. He didn't exactly teach to the gentiles. His mission was a jewish mission, conversing with like'minded people who are culturally connected. Others had no attempt to hear his message.

And protestants were the worse bigots. Many hated jews and catholics and destroyed the indians. And not to mention the protestant south and slavery and the protestants in south africa and apartheid.

Your argument runs dry.

[_why me]

Is it a crime to be adamantly against Mormonism? Is there anything wrong with strongly having something against Mormonism?

It can be if the law is fair. No one should write in such a way which can incite people to act against a group of people. And the protestants at the time of Joseph Smith were guilty of this in their newspapers about the Mormons. The newspapers were directly responsible for much of the problem as they wrote inciteful articiles against the Mormons. They riled up the gentiles.

And it can happen again through the internet.

[_Ray A]

Was Jesus a bigot? It seems so. He didn't exactly teach to the gentiles. His mission was a jewish mission, conversing with like'minded people who are culturally connected. Others had no attempt to hear his message.

And protestants were the worse bigots. Many hated jews and catholics and destroyed the indians. And not to mention the protestant south and slavery and the protestants in south africa and apartheid.

Your argument runs dry.

Jesus bigot + Mormon bigots = Truth Restored.