A formal apology...

[_Mary]

Where in the first presidency message issued in 1978 do they say that the ban was NOT because of the Curse or Mark of Cain?

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to ensure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

SPENCER W. KIMBALL
N. ELDON TANNER
MARION G. ROMNEY
The First Presidency[5]

We all were relieved in the UK when the ban was lifted, but most I knew that discussed it continued to believe that:


1) They had still been cursed with the Mark of Cain, as per Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.


2) Blacks were less valiant in heaven

(as an aside I was also told I was likely less valiant in heaven because I had inactive parents and was not deemed worthy by God to be born in/under the covenant)


If all this shows anything, it shows that the Church did not go far enough, and never has. Not one of my active friends believes (including those that are black) that the ban was NOT because of the Mark of Cain.

Folklore and rumour my foot....It was taught as the will of God both before and after the lifting of the 1978 ban with the above reasoning (particularly no1), which is exactly why Randy Bott, understandably said the things that he said.

[_Buffalo]

You'll of course remember how after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, successive presidential administrations would issue anonymous press releases declaring that they didn't know why the United States practiced slavery and claiming that none of the Founding Fathers practiced it, and that the United States has never been racist, and that Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution was never law, while apologists for our country argued that the enslavement of black Africans was not racist.

No I am not familiar with any of what appears to be bull shite on your part. But you know so little of the meaning of an anonymous statement. A press release issued by an institution is not anonymous.

That's not a nice way to characterize your own church.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Where in the first presidency message issued in 1978 do they say that the ban was NOT because of the Curse or Mark of Cain?

Based on what I know of Spencer W. Kimball (and I contributed in a small way to one of his bios by his son and my former law professor, Edward), he couldn't find the reason for the ban when he was undertaking the diligence to propose a change to the Lord.

I can only take from that statement that what reasons were offered him were somehow deficient. Perhaps there was no verified basis for them. Perhaps the people advancing the doctrine were just speculation. I don't know. But, for whatever reason, the reason for the ban just wasn't known well enough to say, here is the reason for the ban.

Of course, I heard all the same garbage you heard about the reason the blacks were excluded. To me, it had achieved the level of "doctrine," in that it was taught in church and advanced by official sources.

But, my own research has caused me to conclude that Brigham Young imposed the ban to try and improve chances for Utah's admission as a state, in the wake of the Missouri Compromise. Brigham Young didn't want the Church to be seen as a haven for abolitionists. Further, the Republican party in the 1850s was extremely anti-Mormon (twin relics of barbarism, etc.) and Pres. Young probably had discussions with the South. After all, Albert Sydney Johnston went on to be a top Confederate General.

During them days, it was easy to be an anti-abolitionist. Lincoln was one.

[Guest]

That's not a nice way to characterize your own church.

Yer problem, as I have demonstrated in the past, is the problem of the unlettered, unread, uncurious, and undiscriminating.

[_Darth J]

You'll of course remember how after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, successive presidential administrations would issue anonymous press releases declaring that they didn't know why the United States practiced slavery and claiming that none of the Founding Fathers practiced it, and that the United States has never been racist, and that Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution was never law, while apologists for our country argued that the enslavement of black Africans was not racist.

No I am not familiar with any of what appears to be bull shite on your part.

Conversely, I am familiar with what is irrefutably BS on the part of the LDS Church, the behavior of which is analogous to what I wrote above.

But you know so little of the meaning of an anonymous statement. A press release issued by an institution is not anonymous.

It is men who tout themselves as prophets, seers, and revelators hiding behind a corporate entity.

Who wrote these press releases that are purporting to address substantive doctrinal matters?

[_Darth J]

Based on what I know of Spencer W. Kimball (and I contributed in a small way to one of his bios by his son and my former law professor, Edward), he couldn't find the reason for the ban when he was undertaking the diligence to propose a change to the Lord.

I can only take from that statement that what reasons were offered him were somehow deficient. Perhaps there was no verified basis for them. Perhaps the people advancing the doctrine were just speculation. I don't know. But, for whatever reason, the reason for the ban just wasn't known well enough to say, here is the reason for the ban.

Of course, I heard all the same garbage you heard about the reason the blacks were excluded. To me, it had achieved the level of "doctrine," in that it was taught in church and advanced by official sources.

But, my own research has caused me to conclude that Brigham Young imposed the ban to try and improve chances for Utah's admission as a state, in the wake of the Missouri Compromise. Brigham Young didn't want the Church to be seen as a haven for abolitionists. Further, the Republican party in the 1850s was extremely anti-Mormon (twin relics of barbarism, etc.) and Pres. Young probably had discussions with the South. After all, Albert Sydney Johnston went on to be a top Confederate General.

During them days, it was easy to be an anti-abolitionist. Lincoln was one.

And this is completely different from what the Church said happened in the Great Apostasy, because......

Umm........

[Guest]

Conversely, I am familiar with what is irrefutably b***s*** on the part of the LDS Church, the behavior of which is analogous to what I wrote above.

Too bad you can't defend your bull shite about presidential statements and instead do a general genuflect in the direction of the Whore of Babylon.

Who wrote these press releases that are purporting to address substantive doctrinal matters?

[/quote]

The Church. You can look at my firm's website and see that my firm has made various statements to the world about its business. You are so naïve, but as I recall, you are from Utah.

[_Yahoo Bot]

And this is completely different from what the Church said happened in the Great Apostasy, because......

Umm........

Oh, how inciteful.

Rather, it looks very similar to the conflict between Peter and Paul over admitting Gentiles to the dinner table.

[_Darth J]

Conversely, I am familiar with what is irrefutably b***s*** on the part of the LDS Church, the behavior of which is analogous to what I wrote above.

Too bad you can't defend your bull shite about presidential statements and instead do a general genuflect in the direction of the Whore of Babylon.

You mean the presidential statements and apologia for same that were never made, thus negating your comparison of Official Declaration 2 to the Emancipation Proclamation?

Who wrote these press releases that are purporting to address substantive doctrinal matters?

The Church. You can look at my firm's website and see that my firm has made various statements to the world about its business. You are so naïve, but as I recall, you are from Utah.

Oh, of course. I'm sure that that limited liability partnership wrote its own statements. I imagine that a limited liability partnership has a strong courtroom presence when it personally appears before a judge.

And I really enjoyed that one talk given by "the Church" in General Conference last October. And who doesn't remember when "the Church" was sustained as the head of itself?

Not to mention when, as faithful Latter-day Saints, we were asked in temple recommend interviews if we sustain "the Church" as the President of itself, and as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and "the Church" as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.

Speaking of interviews, did you watch it a few years ago when "the Church" was a guest on Larry King Live?

[_Buffalo]

That's not a nice way to characterize your own church.

Yer problem, as I have demonstrated in the past, is the problem of the unlettered, unread, uncurious, and undiscriminating.

Also, my anonymity, which makes me worse than a terrorist. Don't forget that one.