The First Presidency Statement on the Negro Question

[_RayAgostini]

RayA, if that scripture is foundational, and a basis for extending the priesthood to people regardless of race, why is it not also a basis for extending the priesthood to women? From President Newsroom's statement:

The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

Perhaps one day it will be. I don't discount it. The thing I really like about the Church is its capacity for change. Women have always played a vital role in the gospel, and their importance has, perhaps, been underestimated by "social traditions". These need to be weaned out, and I see no reason a woman cannot be a bishop or priesthood leader. I don't believe a gay man or lesbian woman should be leaders, for what I think are obvious reasons, and that's where I'd draw a line. But as for a faithful woman, like Ruth, I see no barrier. I'm also a great believer and unapologetic and totally adoring fan of Joan of Arc.

"And it shall come to pass, in the last days, says God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17-18) (Emphasis added)

They were female prophets, and not one whit behind men in their inspiration. The laying on of hands to such valiant women of God, would only be a kind of symbolism, and nothing else. God gave them his authority and power long before man ever could.

[_Mary]

Ray, if I were the church newsroom this is the statement, more or less, that I would have made.

In the past we have unfortunately taught as doctrine and the will of the lord, based on old testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price teachings, or at least our interpretation of them, that people of colour were barred and unworthy of holding the priesthood, various reasons were put forwards for why this might be so.

We now recognise that the interpretation of these passages of scripture were wholly wrong and uninspired and never the will of a God who from the time of Jesus of Nazareth has welcomed all into his fold.

For these errors we can only apologise to the many peoples who have been hurt or troubled.

We are sorry. We now and have for 30 or so years welcomed and loved all who wish baptism into the faith.

(Something like that, anyway)

[_bcspace]

How have the Newsroom statements changed any doctrine? What statements did they specify are not doctrine?

If you can't read what was posted in the OP in this thread, compare it to what President Newsroom said in the two statements issued in recent days, and see the differences, you are truly beyond help.

No particular statements were specified. However, such statements referred to seemed to be identified as non doctrinal ones so sure, BRM's Mormon Doctrine is out. But that has always been so. So......?

[_Chap]

I have been "locked out" of this board on more than "several occasions", and unable to log in, especially when I've criticised "sacred ex-Mormon dogma". I don't think it's a coincidence, at all. I've never been locked out for being critical of Mormonism. Not ever. Not once. Weird.

In any case, I think some balance is needed here in the case of Darrick Evenson, who claims to be a "Daheshist apologist".

Darrick Evenson, a new Daheshist.

So have I, recently. So I don't think you have a martyrdom opportunity here. On this board, we don't do 'sacred'.

[_RayAgostini]

Hi Mary,

In my view, the doctrine was there from the beginning:

32 And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

(I placed verse 32 in bold as well to remind us that the God of the Book of Mormon is concerned about all aspects of our lives, and how we conduct ourselves, in particular how we treat our fellow human beings.)

I've read the Book of Mormon so many times, and in overall perspective, I've never once come away without feeling a greater reverence and appreciation for life, and my faith in God enhanced, and the feeling that in the end, my life is in the hands of an all-encompassing and merciful God, who will take all things into account in judgement. It has always spoken peace and comfort to my soul, and it's not possible to convey this by only quoting portions. One must read it; absorb it, and feel the power in it. It is indeed, the "Keystone", when read entirely and absorbed.

[_Mary]

Despite reading the article by John Tvedtnes on alleged racism in the Book of Mormon, I still have trouble with the implications of many of the passages Ray.

I'll chew over it for a bit.

[_Daheshist]

The Brethren have no intention of issuing a Public Apology. Rather, they intend to continue to DENY that the Church ever taught the Curse of Cain Doctrine, and to blame this "folklore" on "some Members. Church leaders always blame the Members on embarrassing things they have taught and done in the past.

Ray, if I were the church newsroom this is the statement, more or less, that I would have made.

In the past we have unfortunately taught as doctrine and the will of the lord, based on old testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price teachings, or at least our interpretation of them, that people of colour were barred and unworthy of holding the priesthood, various reasons were put forwards for why this might be so.

We now recognise that the interpretation of these passages of scripture were wholly wrong and uninspired and never the will of a God who from the time of Jesus of Nazareth has welcomed all into his fold.

For these errors we can only apologise to the many peoples who have been hurt or troubled.

We are sorry. We now and have for 30 or so years welcomed and loved all who wish baptism into the faith.

(Something like that, anyway)

[_KevinSim]

Ray, if I were the church newsroom this is the statement, more or less, that I would have made.

In the past we have unfortunately taught as doctrine and the will of the lord, based on old testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price teachings, or at least our interpretation of them, that people of colour were barred and unworthy of holding the priesthood, various reasons were put forwards for why this might be so.

We now recognise that the interpretation of these passages of scripture were wholly wrong and uninspired and never the will of a God who from the time of Jesus of Nazareth has welcomed all into his fold.

For these errors we can only apologise to the many peoples who have been hurt or troubled.

We are sorry. We now and have for 30 or so years welcomed and loved all who wish baptism into the faith.

Miss Taken, that would work for a faith that represented a society of believers, who want to express their beliefs about God and recognize that they've made a huge mistake. The LDS Church doesn't represent a society of believers; the LDS Church represents God, and won't dare to ever make a statement that they don't believe God Himself inspired. This doesn't mean they won't ever make mistakes; it just means that whether they've made a mistake or not, the best policy is to work very hard at understanding what God is inspiring them to say and then say it.

I personally don't believe God inspired Brigham Young to make the statements Young made about blacks that served as the catalyst for the priesthood ban. My wife does, and in all honesty I have to admit that she might be right; I just don't agree with her at this point. But I also believe Official Declaration 2 is precisely what Spencer Kimball felt God was inspiring Kimball to put together in June 1978, and I believe that God considered Kimball to be His spokesman to the world not an iota less than God considered Young to be that spokesman back in the late 1800s.

[_Drifting]

Ray, if I were the church newsroom this is the statement, more or less, that I would have made.

In the past we have unfortunately taught as doctrine and the will of the lord, based on old testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price teachings, or at least our interpretation of them, that people of colour were barred and unworthy of holding the priesthood, various reasons were put forwards for why this might be so.

We now recognise that the interpretation of these passages of scripture were wholly wrong and uninspired and never the will of a God who from the time of Jesus of Nazareth has welcomed all into his fold.

For these errors we can only apologise to the many peoples who have been hurt or troubled.

We are sorry. We now and have for 30 or so years welcomed and loved all who wish baptism into the faith.

(Something like that, anyway)

Sounds good.
Please keep the template so that the Church can dust it off and use it again when, at some future point, it decides to reverse its position on gays and women...

[_KevinSim]

Perhaps one day it will be. I don't discount it. The thing I really like about the Church is its capacity for change. Women have always played a vital role in the gospel, and their importance has, perhaps, been underestimated by "social traditions". These need to be weaned out, and I see no reason a woman cannot be a bishop or priesthood leader. I don't believe a gay man or lesbian woman should be leaders, for what I think are obvious reasons, and that's where I'd draw a line. But as for a faithful woman, like Ruth, I see no barrier. I'm also a great believer and unapologetic and totally adoring fan of Joan of Arc.

Ray, I've heard a lot of people talk about what the LDS Church should be, or could be, and sometimes it sounds like they want to set up their own church, the LDS Church as they think it really ought to have been set up.

I can understand why they would make statements like that. In all honesty I have had similar thoughts myself in the past. If I were organizing a faith, I would indeed have women as leaders of that faith at all levels. And in fact I wouldn't draw the line you said you drew; I'd have gays and lesbians as leaders of that faith at all levels.

But I wouldn't have a single person, male or female, gay or straight, that I would call a priest, until I knew that God wanted that person to be considered a priest. Maybe I'm unduly influenced by my LDS upbringing, but I've always believed that for someone to be a priest God has to give that someone His approval.

The relevant scripture then, is Official Declaration 2, where Spencer Kimball said that "all worthy males" could now hold the priesthood.