What is God telling the prophets?

[_Tobin]

Mormons are really hung up on this canon thing. I guess the idea is if it is true (and ultimately from God) then it is in the canon; otherwise it is untrue (or mere speculation)? Good grief! What an odd idea to have to live with!?!

I'd suggest an alternate course for Mormons. I would propose that if something is true, it should be reasonable and conform to reality, fact, or actuality. If it is true, it should broaden our understanding, not diminish it. With this in mind, I would state that a fair-minded Mormon that is seeking the truth apply that criteria to any statement whether found in the canon or outside of it. I would encourage them to embrace what is true and discard that which is not. At least use those God-given faculties that they are blessed with and whatever insight the Lord gives to them as well.

I think if Mormons did that, they'd recognize the truth in many sources and acknowledge them. I would think they would reject parts of the canon that are untrue as well and feel no discomfort in doing so.

[_harmony]

Mormons are really hung up on this canon thing. I guess the idea is if it is true (and ultimately from God) then it is in the canon; otherwise it is untrue (or mere speculation)? Good grief! What an odd idea to have to live with!?!

I'd suggest an alternate course for Mormons. I would propose that if something is true, it should be reasonable and conform to reality, fact, or actuality. If it is true, it should broaden our understanding, not diminish it. With this in mind, I would state that a fair-minded Mormon that is seeking the truth apply that criteria to any statement whether found in the canon or outside of it. I would encourage them to embrace what is true and discard that which is not. At least use those God-given faculties that they are blessed with and whatever insight the Lord gives to them as well.

I think if Mormons did that, they'd recognize the truth in many sources and acknowledge them. I would think they would reject parts of the canon that are untrue as well and feel no discomfort in doing so.

Surely you jest. Either that or you change sides as easily as you change your sheets.

[_harmony]

Mormons are really hung up on this canon thing. I guess the idea is if it is true (and ultimately from God) then it is in the canon; otherwise it is untrue (or mere speculation)? Good grief! What an odd idea to have to live with!?!

Um... no. At least, not in my Mormon mind.

If it's in the canon, then I either agreed to it, or it was accepted as part of
"Mormondom" before I joined and I didn't have a chance to disagree.

If it's not in the canon, then I don't feel obligated to abide by it. It's not part of the "Mormondom" that I accept as binding.

Sure, there are lots of things in the canon that I don't accept (like most of the D&C and virtually all of the POGP). However, nothing any prophet has said that isn't canonized do I consider binding. If I agree, fine. If I don't... tough horse pucky.

(I was a cafeteria Baptist before I was a cafeteria Mormon, so I see no conflict therein)

[_Brackite]

So, God has decided that it's none of our beeswax why he set in place a racially discriminatory practice that lasted over 150 years.

What is more important than that? What is he telling the prophets? And, does he have a quota or something where he can only tell the prophets so many things before he puts them on ignore?

The Priesthood Ban most likely was instituted by Brigham Young instead of by Joseph Smith.

There once was a time, albeit brief, when a “Negro problem” did not exist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. During those early months in New York and Ohio no mention was even made of Church attitudes towards blacks. The gospel was for “all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples,”1 and no exceptions were made. A Negro, “Black Pete,” was among the first converts in Ohio, and his story was prominently reported in the local press.2 W. W. Phelps opened a mission to Missouri in July 1831 and preached to “all the families of the earth,” specifically mentioning Negroes among his first audience.3 The following year another black, Elijah Abel, was baptized in Maryland.4

...

It is significant, I believe, that in spite of the many discussions of blacks and slavery that had been published by 1836, no reference had been made to the priesthood. Yet, while there was not a written policy on blacks and the priesthood, a precedent had been established. Shortly before publication of the articles on abolitionism, a Negro was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. It has been suggested, considerably after the fact, that this was a mistake which was quickly rectified. Such a claim is totally unfounded and was actually refuted by Joseph F. Smith shortly after being put forth.29 Elijah Abel was ordained an elder 3 March, 1836, and shortly thereafter received his patriarchal blessing from Joseph Smith, Sr.30 In June he was listed among the recently licensed elders31 and on 20 December, 1836, was ordained a seventy.32 Three years later, in June 1839, he was still active in the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum,33 and his seventy’s certificate was renewed in 1841, and again after his arrival in Salt Lake City.34 Moreover, Abel was known by Joseph Smith and reportedly lived for a time in the Prophet’s home.35

...

Though Brigham Young clearly rejected Joseph Smith’s manifest belief that the curse on Ham did not justify Negro slavery, possibly an even greater difference of opinion is reflected in the importance Young ascribed to the alleged connection with Cain. “The seed of Ham, which is [p.70]the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a ‘servant of servants’ to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it”;83 or, “The Lord put a mark upon [Cain], which is the flat nose and the black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.”84

Brigham Young derived a second far-reaching implication from the genealogy of the Negro. Asked what “chance of redemption there was for the Africans,” Young answered that “the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel…. The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” The Journal History account of this conversation, dated 13 February, 1849, is the earliest record of a Church decision to deny the priesthood to Negroes.85 At the time practical implications of the decision were limited. Though reliable information is very scanty, there appear to have been very few Negro Mormons in 1849. Only seven of the twenty thus far identified were men, and three of these were slaves; two of the four freemen had already been given the priesthood.86

Though Brigham Young reaffirmed his stand on priesthood denial to the Negro on many occasions, by far the most striking of the known statements of his position was included in an address to the territorial legislature, 16 January, 1852, recorded in Wilford Woodruff s journal of that date. In this gubernatorial address, Young appears to both confirm himself as the instigator of the priesthood policy, and to bear testimony to its inspired origin: “Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.” This clearly is one of the most important statements in the entire history of this subject.

Link: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445

As Newell G. Bringhurst has thoroughly documented, William McCary, a half-African, half-Indian Mormon musician, was in Winter Quarters, Nebraska, entertaining "the encamped Saints in February and March 1847". An accomplished ventriloquist, McCary was expelled from Winter Quarters for dressing as an Indian, claiming to be Adam "the ancient of days", and then throwing his voice to announce that "God spake unto him and called him Thomas." Before McCary departed, Brigham Young confronted him. Still not having developed the "curse of Cain" doctrine as reason to deny black men priesthood, Young told McCary, "Its nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent [to] regain what we av lost � we av one of the best Elders an African in Lowell."[107] Here Young still believed that it wasn�t racial identity, but individual worthiness, which merited priesthood. And he used Walker Lewis as an example of that very concept.



"The negro prophet" soon returned after his expulsion however to start "his own rival Mormon group", and in the fall of 1847 William McCary began practicing polygamy, having white Mormon women "seald to him" (married for "time and all eternity" through Mormon ritual), which was "for the women to go to bed with him in the daytime" while his first wife "was in the room at the time of the proformance". Some Mormons reacted very strongly to this mockery of both polygamy and the sealing ritual of the temple. For instance, Nelson W. Whipple (1818-1887) threatened to shoot McCary.[108]



Newell G. Bringhurst and Ronald K. Esplin document that the "earliest-known statement" of black priesthood denial came a month after McCary�s first expulsion from Winter Quarters, from none other than Parley P. Pratt, who certainly had known Walker Lewis for at least four years. Pratt told a Mormon congregation in April 1847 that the apostate William McCary "was a black man with the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood", quoting from the Mormon scriptures called the Book of Abraham.[109]



...



Brigham Young, still quite vulnerable in his leadership position of the majority of the Latter-day Saints, may not have appreciated Walker Lewis� high Masonic rank either. Young had only been a Mason since 1842, being initiated along with Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, and the majority of other LDS leaders at the Nauvoo Lodge.[116] Joseph Smith Sr. had been a Freemason since 1817, but he had died in 1840 before the Nauvoo Lodge was started. The other pre-church organization Masons were Hyrum Smith, William W. Phelps, and Heber C. Kimball; but they had all become Masons between 1823 and 1826, which is the same timeframe that Walker Lewis was first raised as well. According to John L. Brooke, Joseph Smith Jr. had espoused a "Masonic mythology" in which the descendants of Seth and Cain formed into "two races of men, good and evil, carrying pure and spurious versions of Masonic knowledge".[117] Walker Lewis seemed to be living proof of this: a black man allegedly descended from Cain, and a past Most Worshipful Grand Master of African Grand Lodge #1, one of the most controversial lodges in existence and often held (by white Masons) as spurious indeed.[118]



Young�s instigation of a priesthood ban against all men of African ancestry may have been partly due to Walker Lewis� high Masonic rank in a Grand Lodge that many white Freemasons esteemed as spurious and irregular. That, coupled with the fact that many of the men in the mob that killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith were Freemasons, may have turned Young against Walker Lewis. When Joseph Smith was assaulted, his last words were the first part of the Masonic distress call: "Oh Lord my God". He was unable to finish the last half, "Is there no help for the widow�s son?" as he fell from the second storey of the Carthage Jailhouse; stunned from the fall, he was set against a nearby wall and shot execution-style by several mobsters backed by the Whig Party.[119] The failure of Masonic brothers to come to the aid of a fellow brother in distress caused many of the Mormon leadership to eschew Masonry and Freemasons.



I feel certain that William McCary�s troubling actions at Winter Quarters in the spring and fall of 1847, Young�s discovery of the Lewis-Webster marriage in December 1847, and Walker Lewis� high standing in African Freemasonry, were the three most important factors in Brigham Young�s instigation of a priesthood ban against all men with African ancestry in late 1847 or early 1848.

Link: http://people.ucsc.edu/~odonovan/elder_ ... lewis.html