Did Elder Snow Misrepresent the Truth on National TV

[_DarkHelmet]

I wonder, when they say stuff like this, if they think it sounds good to non-members. I mean, the guy basically said that the Mormon Church discriminated against Blacks for a hundred and some odd years but they don't know why they did it. Does that inspire confidence in anyone but the most addle-brained true believer? Say what you will about Hinckley's response to Mike Wallace, at least it made some sense: it's all behind us and it doesn't matter because we are moving forward and that's all that counts. Still not satisfactory, but a whole lot better than "we don't have any idea what the f*** we were doing for 150 years."

There current stance is contrary to the book Mormonism and the Negro which was written back in the 60s to explain the church's position.

From the book's introduction:

There is nothing in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints about which any member need feel any shame, apology or embarrassment. Perhaps in the individual failings and weaknesses of some who profess to be members, there may be cause, but not in the Gospel itself. As the Apostle Paul said,

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth . . ." (Romans 1:16)

Yet because of the popular beliefs and traditions of the world, there are at least two points of doctrine and history of this Church about which many LDS themselves - to say nothing of many non-members - feel ill at ease or critical. One of these is its doctrine regarding the Negro.

If we properly understood this doctrine, and the reasons for it, we would not feel critical of it. "And ye shall know the truth," taught Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." (John 8:32) We would become free of any misgivings about these teachings, and readily proclaim to the world what they are, and why.

Part II

Briefly, the LDS policy on Negroes is this: Negroes and others with Negroid blood can become members of the Church, and through righteous works receive patriarchal blessings, enter the temple to perform baptisms for the dead, become heirs to the Celestial kingdom and otherwise partake of many blessings afforded worthy members of the Church, but they cannot be ordained to the Priesthood, nor are they eligible for marriage in an LDS temple; Negroes and Non-Negroes should not intermarry.

In regard to this policy on Negroes, members of the Church face three alternatives:

(1) Be apologizers for the Church: say that it is old fashioned, outmoded on this point: prejudiced.

(2) Confess that we do not know the reasons for this policy, although we accept it; that we have blind faith in it.

(3) Proclaim that it is a correct and reasonable doctrine, that it is tenable, that we have no reason either to apologize for it nor evade questions about it. We must then explain the reasons for it and show that it is consistent with the rest of LDS doctrine.

The first two alternatives are totally unacceptable to me:

If we are apologizers for the Church on this point, then we admit in effect that all Gospel doctrine is not sound; we say in effect that either the original position of the Church was incorrect on this matter, or, if it was correct, that we as a Church do not enjoy continuous revelation and thus have become out-dated on this doctrine. If we deny continuous revelation in the Church then we place ourselves in much the same position as all other so-called Christian sects, and isolate ourselves from God, the head of our Church.

If we accept the second alternative, that of blind faith in the doctrine, something that we do not understand but do not question, then we place ourselves in much the same position as churches that favor blind faith. And we find ourselves having to evade rather than face issues. But LDS theology teaches us that our faith should be an intelligent faith, not a blind faith. For instance, we read in the Book of Moses:

This book is unintentional comedy gold. As ridiculous as it is, I think BC Space would love it.

[_Sethbag]

Ouch, the blind faith thing. How often have mopologists and other believers bristled at the suggestion that they exercise blind faith?

But bring up the priesthood ban, and it's "we have no idea why we had this policy in place, but we did, and we followed it because people told us to." Um, blind faith anyone?

Mopologists love to use lack of completeness to dismiss an entire subject. Since we don't "fully" understand the doctrine, it is not a legitimate topic for complaint nor discussion. Since we don't "fully" understand what will become of people who go to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, it's not proper to say Mormons believe they will become gods. And on and on.

Mormons cannot be held responsible for any belief or teaching unless the critics can demonstrate that the teachings or beliefs represent full and complete, 100% informed understanding of the topic. Anything less and no criticism can stick at all. It's obviously bogus, because Mormons don't require 100% full understanding of anything before believing something or enforcing it upon one another.

[_Equality]

Are any of the Apostles from 1978 still alive?

Monson, Packer, Perry.

[_Drifting]

Are any of the Apostles from 1978 still alive?

Monson, Packer, Perry.

Well, they should be able to tell us.
They were involved in the investigation that led to the revelation from God to end the ban. So they should know what God said on the matter.

[_Molok]

The only reason I can think of that explains the Church's refusal to make such an admission is that many of the Twelve, in their heart of hearts, actually still believe that those past statements were true.

I can think of another one. Anyone who cares to look up the quote can find Prophets saying that the priesthood ban was a direct revelation from God. If the church said now that the priesthood ban was the result of nothing more than racism, it would be tacitly admitting that prophets couldn't tell the difference between their own beliefs and the word of God

[_Boilermaker]

I joined the LDS Church in the early 70s. I asked about this because it was a big issue for me. Some people tried to give me an explanation, but in the end they always said, "We really don't know why blacks can't hold the priesthood." So I don't think Scott misrepresented what I was taught 40 years ago.

[_Drifting]

The Church leaders used to know the reason for the ban...

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less." (Doctrines of Salvation, p. 61)

Apostle Mark E. Petersen:
"God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death.

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders.

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth.We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject.

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a café where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'.

"Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation.

"When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation.

"Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them.

"The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there.

"Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing - what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory." (Apostle Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems - As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

Apostle George F. Richards  (spoken in conference)
Conference Reports, CR April 1939, Second Day-Morning Meeting: Elder George F. Richards

"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."

[_The Mighty Builder]

Yeah, Curse of Cain doctrine is dead. Just watch this clip

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=218405 ... featured-2

You know Curse of Cain and pasty white girls living in Lehi, UT is a NORMAL Mormon family.

[_Craig Paxton]

When Elder Snow misrepresnded (I'm being kind) church doctine...he should have read up on first Presidency pronouncments....for clearly...before 1978...the church KNEW full well the reasons for the ban...

Here is a letter from the first presidency stating that it was not a policy but church doctrine..in fact a commandment from God Himself:



August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is NOT a matter of the declaration of a POLICY but of DIRECT COMMANDMENT FROM THE LORD, on which is FOUNDED THE DOCTRINE of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a SKIN OF BLACKNESS? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.” The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that THE CONDUCT OF SPIRITS IN THE PREMORTAL EXISTENCE has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark
David. O. McKay

[_angsty]

LDS PR Efforts: Failing to Properly Evaluate the Intelligence and Gullibility of the General American Population Since 1830