Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Bazooka »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
Jaybear wrote:Spoken like the conformist that you are.


I am about the least of the conformers you will find in the Church, but I believe that essential Christianity means unity.

When the Brethren said it was your duty to fund prop 8, I am guessing that broke out your checkbook and wrote a big fat check, not because your a bigot, who bought the BS fears that were being peddled, but because you are a conformist who doesn't have the balls to speak up to the rank bigotry of your church leaders.


Now, there's a good example as far as I am concerned. I am a libertarian and had an indifferent attitude towards Prop 8. I was asked to write a big fat check and I did, even though it was against my political principles.


So, Bot, you're spineless. Good to know.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _LDSToronto »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
If you don't like the fact that Shriners wear silly hats, then don't join. If you're a Shriner, then leave. Whiners garner no respect. Stand up like a man (or woman), be counted, and get out. But don't work on spoiling the party for the rest of us, who enjoy wearing the silly hats.


I wholeheartedly agree. Stay in the LDS church and be counted as a racist.

H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _LDSToronto »

Bazooka wrote:So, Bot, you're spineless. Good to know.


Absolutely not! It takes courage to be a homo-hating racist.

H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _sock puppet »

Yahoo Bot wrote:
Jaybear wrote:Spoken like the conformist that you are.


I am about the least of the conformers you will find in the Church, but I believe that essential Christianity means unity.

When the Brethren said it was your duty to fund prop 8, I am guessing that broke out your checkbook and wrote a big fat check, not because your a bigot, who bought the BS fears that were being peddled, but because you are a conformist who doesn't have the balls to speak up to the rank bigotry of your church leaders.


Now, there's a good example as far as I am concerned. I am a libertarian and had an indifferent attitude towards Prop 8. I was asked to write a big fat check and I did, even though it was against my political principles.

Bot, were you libertarian before you began law school?
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Yahoo Bot wrote:I am a libertarian and had an indifferent attitude towards Prop 8. I was asked to write a big fat check and I did, even though it was against my political principles.
Bob, that is an incredibly sad admission. Whatever happened to 'standing for something'? Too bad your $5K was spent on such a worthless campaign that any lawyer worth his salt knew would eventually be deemed unconstitutional (regardless of the majority trying to trample the rights of a minority). You really should have known better, Bob.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _sock puppet »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:I am a libertarian and had an indifferent attitude towards Prop 8. I was asked to write a big fat check and I did, even though it was against my political principles.
Bob, that is an incredibly sad admission. Whatever happened to 'standing for something'? Too bad your $5K was spent on such a worthless campaign that any lawyer worth his salt knew would eventually be deemed unconstitutional (regardless of the majority trying to trample the rights of a minority). You really should have known better, Bob.

Definitely sad. I see serious conflict within Bot about this, more than I see failing to stand for something. Bot knew how misguided the LDS effort was, both from Bot's legal expertise and from his personal, libertarian belief. Yet he wrote out the check. Shame on the poseurs in SLC that asked for such checks, plying on the religious beliefs and hopes of their followers.

I see Bot more in the position of the young women and their families that JSJr promised exaltation in exchange for 'marrying' him. They ceded to that proposal, not because they lacked backbone, but because the despicable, JSJr in the 1840s, the COB in 2008, were leveraging off of those beliefs.
_Jaybear
_Emeritus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:49 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Jaybear »

Yahoo Bot wrote:I am about the least of the conformers you will find in the Church, but I believe that essential Christianity means unity.


The least conforming Mormon, is that like being the thinnest girl at fat camp?

Here is the thing I have noticed about most Mormons, they will come up with reasons to rationalize why drinking coffee is bad for them, and others rather than admit that the only reason they don't drink coffee like the rest of the world, is because they have been told not to drink coffee.

You strike me as the type of Mormon that would abstain from drinking coffee, tea and wine, purely out of obedience and conformity (or as you say unity), and without feeling the need to rationalize.

Now, there's a good example as far as I am concerned. I am a libertarian and had an indifferent attitude towards Prop 8. I was asked to write a big fat check and I did, even though it was against my political principles.


I can't tell if you are proud or embarrassed by this fact.

I see that you prefer to say it went against your "political principles" rather than acknowledging that promoting bigotry and discrimination against gays goes went agaisnt your moral compass or even in more simple terms that that you consider it wrong. So looks like your not immune to the need to rationalize.

by the way, real libertarians are not indifferent to government overreach, they disdain and oppose it. I imagine I am on a thick branch in guessing that you supported and voted for Mitt Romney and not Gary Johnson.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _grindael »

For any that don't know, there is an explanation for the ban, given by Brigham Young, and recorded by Wilford Woodruff.

Their has been a great stir to exhalt the Negro & make him equal to the white man but there is a curse upon the seed of Cain & all Hell cannot wipe it out & it cannot be taken off untill God takes if off. When A person unlawfully seeks for power & exhaltation by taking the blessings which belongs to Another He will sink far below the other. As Lucipher the son of the morning Sought the glory that belonged to Christ the first Born He was thrust down to Hell. So Cain sought Abels Blessing & took the life of his brother. The consequence was Cain was cursed & his seed & this curse will remain untill Abels posterity will get all the Blessing their is for him. Then the curse may be taken from Cain or his posterity but his posterity will be below Abels. All are slaves. Polititions are the worst slaves And if we don't do right we shall ketch the lash. We are the freest people on Earth. Queen Victoria is A slave. Had to Ask the liberty to Marry prince Albert. But we are free. We have the right God & kingdom. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p.43, June 29, 1851)


And,

“Adam had two sons Kane & Abel. Cain was more given to evil than Abel. Adam was called to offer sacrifice also his sons. The sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable than Canes & Cane took it into his heart to put Abel out of the way so he killed Abel.

The Lord said I will not kill Cane But I will put a mark upon him and it is seen in the [face?] of every Negro on the Earth And it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cane & the Curse untill all the seed of Abel should be re[deem?]ed and Cane will not receive the priesthood untill or salvation untill all the seed of Abel are Redeemed. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government But the day will Come when all the seed of Cane will be Redeemed & have all the Blessings we have now & a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cane to all Eternity.

Let me consent to day to mingle my seed with the seed of Cane. It would Bring the same curse upon me And it would upon any man. And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the ownly way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children…Their is not one of the seed of old Cane that is permitted to rule & reign over the seed of Abel And you nor I cannot Help it. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p.97-8)

Young also put the speculation about the pre-existence to rest:

Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. Presidet Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 6, p.511, December 25, 1869))

This doctrine was started by Orson Hyde:

In 1845 LDS Apostle Orson Hyde explained that those spirits who were unworthy were sent through the cursed lineage:

“At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, . . . These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth: . . But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the Negro or African race (“Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests’ Quorum, in Nauvoo,” April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, p. 30).

Gaylon L. Caldwell, Mormon researcher and author, made the following observation:

“This doctrine is not without logical difficulties, however. Considering the Latter-day Saint dictum that “man is punished for his own sins” the curse on Cain is understandable and consistent with Mormon philosophy, since the Mormon scripture insists that he sinned knowingly and willfully. But how is one to account for the penalty on all his alleged descendants? An arbitrary God who would permit millions of people to be deprived of the priesthood, and hence its concomitant blessings, by accident of birth simply does not fit into the Mormon theology. As would be expected, this problem has led to the formulation of several theses. One of the most popular was framed by B. H. Roberts from a suggestion by Orson Hyde, early Apostle. Roberts suggested that since all spirits before living in the flesh had an opportunity to prove their fidelity to God and His laws during the “war in heaven” some of them might have been neutral, or proved less valiant than others, and thus lost the right of priesthood during their earthly sojourn (“Moral and Religious Aspects of the Negro in Utah,” (Gaylon L. Caldwell, Western Humanities Review, Winter 1959, p. 105).


Still, it wouldn't die:

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.” (Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, vol. 1, Bookcraft, 1954, p. 61).

“Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrine that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore. From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel (First Presidency Letter (1947), as quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart and William E. Berrett, Horizon Publishers, 1978, p. 47).

Mark E. Peterson:

We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments . . . Is it not reasonable to believe that less worthy spirits would come through less favored lineage? . . .

Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. The Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. . . .

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 the lineage of Cain with a black skin. . . . In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel . . . he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. HE WILL GO THERE AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory (“Race Problems—As they Affect the Church,” address by Apostle Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)


Bruce R. McConkie:

Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth. Under Adam’s tutelage, he began in this life to serve God. . . . Then he came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel. . . As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, Bookcraft, 1958 edition, p. 102; in the1966 and 1979 editions, p. 109).


Alvin R. Dyer, assistant to the twelve and later ordained an apostle, spoke on racial issues to the Norwegian Mission gathering in Oslo, Norway, on March 18, 1961. In this talk he said:

We have talked a lot about missionary work and heard the testimonies of those who have spoken. I want to talk to you a little bit now about something that is not missionary work, and what I say is not to be given to your investigators by any matter of means. . . . Why is it that you are white and not colored: Have you ever asked yourself that question? Who had anything to do with your being born into the Church and not born a Chinese or a Hindu, or a Negro? Is God such an unjust person that He would make you white and free and make a Negro CURSED under the cursing of Cain that he could not hold the Priesthood of God? . . . Those who have been cursed in the pre-existence were born through this lineage of Ham. . . .Why is a Negro a Negro? . . . The reason that spirits are born into Negro bodies is because those spirits rejected the Priesthood of God in the pre-existence. This is the reason why you have Negroes upon the earth.

You will observe that when Cain was influenced by the power of Lucifer to follow him and to fall down and worship him in the beginning, it was then that . . . Cain rejected the counsel of God. He rejected again the Priesthood as his forebearers had done in the pre-existence. Therefore, the curse of the pre-existence was made institute through the loins of Cain. Consequently, you have the beginning of the race of men and women into which would be born those in the pre-existence who had rejected the Priesthood of God. . . . Ham reinstated the curse of the pre-existence when he rejected the Priesthood of Noah, and in consequence of that he preserved the curse on the earth. Therefore, the Negroes to be born thereafter, or those who were to become Negroes, were to be born through the loins of Ham.

All of this is according to a well worked-out plan, that these millions and billions of spirits awaiting birth in the pre-existence would be born through a channel or race of people. Consequently, the CURSED were to be born through Ham (“For What Purpose,” talk by Alvin R. Dyer, Oslo, Norway, March 18, 1961, typed copy in our files. Part of this talk is quoted in The Church and the Negro, by John L. Lund, 1967, p. 97).

Then you have the Mormon ‘Patriarchal Blessings’ that focus on RACE and how some are so much more blessed than others, the WHITE RACE, of course being the ‘chosen’ one, where people were the MOST valiant, the MOST loyal, the MOST pure! In answering how some of different families could be from different TRIBES, Fielding Smith said this:

Question: “I wish to receive an answer to the following question: Is it possible for all the members of a family, including father and mother, to be of the tribe of Ephraim and one son in that family to be of the tribe of Manasseh?”

Answer: It is very possible that a patriarch in giving blessings to a family may declare that one or more may be of a different lineage from the others through the inspiration which he receives. We have in our archives, blessings showing this difference to exist in families. Without giving this question careful thought one might conclude that the patriarch HAD SPOKEN WITHOUT INSPIRATION [INDEED!], but such would be an incorrect conclusion.

The fact is that we, each and all, have descended through a mixed lineage. . . . Therefore, through the scattering of Israel among the nations, the blood of Israel was mixed with the Gentile nations, fulfilling the promise made to Abraham. Most of the members of the Church, although they are designated as descendants of Abraham, through Israel, also have in their veins Gentile blood. This is to say, no one is a direct descendant through Ephraim through each generation, or through Manasseh or any other one of the sons of Jacob, without having acquired the blood of some other tribe in Israel in that descent. . . .

The Book of Mormon states that Joseph Smith the Prophet was a descendant of Joseph, son of Jacob. By revelation we learn also that he is of the tribe of Ephraim, but it is evident that he also had some Gentile blood in him, for it is written in the Book of Mormon, that it came forth, “by way of the Gentile,” and it came by Joseph Smith. It is reasonable, therefore, to understand that we one and all have come through a mixed relationship, and that the blood of Ephraim and also of Manasseh could be in the veins of many of us, likewise the blood of others of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that none of us had come through the ages with clear exclusive descent from father to son through any one of the tribes (Answers to Gospel Questions, by Joseph Fielding Smith, vol. 3, Deseret Book, 1960, pp. 61-64)

The farther one researches, the more twisted and unbelievable these explanations become. Take this statement by Smith, and one has to ask, REALLY? When one reads this nonsense:

. . . as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; . . . while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 380).


Approved by Brigham Young:

Again, if a pure Gentile firmly believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yields obedience to it, in such a case I will give you the words of the Prophet Joseph—”When the Lord pours out the Holy Ghost upon that individual he will have spasms, and you would think that he was going into fits.”

Joseph said that the Gentile blood was actually cleansed out of their veins, and the blood of Jacob made to circulate in them; and the revolution and change in the system were so great that it caused the beholder to think they were going into fits (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 269).


Even Jews were not excluded from this ridiculous scenario:

If a Jew comes into this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize. He may have been born and bred a Jew, . . . and have openly professed to be a Jew all his days; but I will tell you a secret—there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him, if he has become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. We have men among us who were Jews, . . . here is brother Neibaur; do I believe there is one particle of the blood of Judah in his veins? No, not so much as could be seen on the point of the finest cambric needle, through a microscope with a magnifying power of two millions (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 142).

There is enough material here to go on and on and on, and yet... the church can't seem to find any of it. Ah, the blessings of ignorance....
Last edited by Guest on Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _grindael »

In the 1940's they knew it was doctrine and knew the reason for the ban because they knew what Brigham Young had said "in the name of Jesus Christ".
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Bazooka »

grindael wrote:In the 1940's they knew it was doctrine and knew the reason for the ban because they knew what Brigham Young had said "in the name of Jesus Christ".


They also knew that when they rewrote the introduction to OD2 "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Post Reply