Is this reason for liberals to be against religion valid?

Many members prior to 1978 believed the priesthood ban was from God, caught up in interpreting the stance as because prophets went along with BY ideals it was because God told them so. We now know this was not the case, the same may be said in 50 years about some “doctrinal” positions we claim today.

1 Like

President Kimball did not relay any message from God that BY was wrong nor the ban was wrong. What was stated wrong were the reasons for the ban, not the ban itself.
Thus, the ban on homosexual acts called a commandment not to participate in them, was not a mistake. Unlike blacks, sexual misconduct has always been banned and will continue to be because it is opposed to Gods eternal plan.

Some believed the ban on blacks goes back to the pre existence and their “unworthiness” or “fence sitting” thus they were born cursed while the white folk were so valiant in the pre existence they were born white. Now if you were even more special, you were born white AND mormon in the last days (hush over the crowded room).

My point is, people have made mistakes before by missinderstanding scripture and doctrine, sometimes even one or two verses and run with it because it fits their narrative. The latest essay erases all doubt about the doctrinal position of this, clearly a personal view not grounded in any of the old myths about white skin superiority. There will come a day when our kids or grandkids will see things change that people today think are unchangable. It happens nearly every 30 years in the church history.

1 Like

The Plan of Salvation of Heavenly Father was presented to all in the pre-existence. Celestial Glory is where we have eternal increase in the joy of our posterity of our own spirit children, male and female. 30 years from now, heterosexual marriages will still be the only acceptable unions between men and women. 30 years from now, God may slap a new law prohibiting blonde men from holding the Priesthood for a time.
Priesthood and the color of ones skin is not te same argument as homosexual sins. Priesthood has to do with assignment and callings. Levi was the only tribe for more than a thousand years that was assigned the calling of Priesthood holders. This had nothing to do with worthiness. Most likely the same with why Blacks were not called or to be called for a time.
Membership and Temple work including Temple marriages has everything to do with worthiness and obedience to the Lord’s commandments and covenants we chose to follow in the pre-existence. Marriage between a man and a woman only.

RU: You will win every argument, when you say you are on the side of our modern day profits, as you speak the truth about what they tell us.

SG: Is the “Profit” spelling a Freudian slip or just misspelling?

RU: Our difference of opinion is not weather something is or is not a sin. Our difference of opinion comes from us believing that we have the right, or perhaps the responsibility, to take away the free agency of others and force them, through law, to believe as we do, right or wrong, or suffer the consequences, because of that law.

SG: I think letting people know that homosexual acts are sins against God is required of the Church. We are commanded in the Scriptures to warn our neighbors. The problem with libertarian is the basic tenants is anarchy. The Law is to establish basic tenants to have an orderly society for the safety of individuals including men, women and children. There is no freedom without the Law. If you want to raise your children up righteously within the bounds the Lord has set, for your neighbor to stand in his yard naked makes it really hard to accomplish what you want. Or, you may want your children to know using drugs like Marijuana is difficult when the person next to you is smoking a joint and your children are breathing it in getting high. The “Prophet” has stated homosexual acts are sin. Having a couple of guys getting it on in the pool you have your kids at while on a vacation would make it difficult for you to swim in the pool too. Sorry, but it’s all more difficult than just letting people live and let live.

RU: I grew up in an era, 1935-55 when the Church was proud to say that they were non political.

SG: When I read some of the things the Prophets were talking about during WW2 and Korea, I don’t agree. Communism and Fascism were spoken about often.

RU: We had modern day profits at that time also. Sometimes the thinking changes. It does not have to be a dream, or a vision, it could just be a knowledge that the time has come for a change. ( 1978). The thinking from 1832 to 1978 came to a change.

SG: Disagree. Prophets leading up to President Kimball’s “Thuth sayeth the Lord” revelation also wanted to lift the ban. David O McKay and Harold B Lee both were pleading to the Lord to lift the ban. But, they said they would not until the Lord told them to. Not because of the political or social pressures. But, because of direct Revelation. The Lord gave the ban and he would be the one to lift the ban. Not some notion or way of thinking. Way of thinking had nothing to do with the ban in the first place. Either you believe God truly lives and converses with our Prophets or you don’t. There is no middle ground.

RU: Perhaps the thinking of this new issue, the Gays and Lesbians, could take on more consideration also. I would love to hear preaching about love, helping those in need, inclusiveness of all citizens and less about those that we do not approve of for any reason. Those things that they do that we do not approve of is their issues that is up to them to deal with. We have plenty of issues of our own that we need to deal with.

SG: Let’s see, the Exodus was how long ago? 3,400 years ago? No, this is not a new issue. Roman Chapter 1 is specific to the evil and vile acts of homosexuality. Christ didn’t change it then either. It hasn’t been changed today and won’t be in the future either. What did President Monson tell Californians about Prop 8? Something about Sodom and Gamorrah? Fight it with all we had. It’s simply wrong.

As far as how we treat people when in the presence of evil, that will depend on the situation. But, it’s not okay to stay silent and allow people to sin without at least trying to teach them the Gospel. If it is, then let’s bring the missionaries all home.

kc,

I don’t know how to respond to this. I think I agree again, with what I think you are saying.

I think that society influences what we believe to be true and what we believe to be the right thing to do.

During the period 1832 and through the first half of the fifties, it was believed to be good to keep the blacks separate from the whites.

By the middle 60’s things slowly began to change, especially after the riots in Watts, Compton, Long Beach and other places.

The blacks made it clear that they would not wait another 200 years for justice.

First the government listened and responded with affirmative action and housing rules, education rules, broadcasting rules, movie role rules etc. Later, the Church in 19878 also responded.

Perhaps it was the change in society and in government that prompted the authorities to respond to their change. ( or maybe it prompted God to have the authorities change) One way or another, I do believer that as society changes, the church also, but more slowly, changes .

In the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s we thought that only God the father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy spirit were infallible. We criticized the Catholics because they believed the Pope was infallible. Now we believe that the General Authorities are infallible. I do not judge if the Pope and/or the General Authorities are infallible.
I do believe in the free agency of everyone to decide that matter on their own.

1 Like

I don’t doubt the Prophets wanted change with the issue blacks excluded not from the Church but from the Priesthood. But, they waited until God made the change through the Prophet (SWK). Ancient Israel was in bondage for 400 years before The Lord caused the change to happen. Israel had been asking for the change a long time. The Lord hears our prayers but answers them appropriately and when He sees fit. That’s my point.

As far as infallibility, depends on the topic. But, when it comes to doctrine and important changes, the Prophet will not lead us astray. Errors may be made, but not to where the Doctrines and Commandments are being improperly taught and dealt with.

Some simply study in this will show the timing was not what you claim, there was a lot of factors involved, it wasn’t cooincidence at all.

1 Like

Simple study from who? Others like yourself who seem to reject latter-day prophets connection to The Lord?bi was there at.BYU when it happened. It was a thuth sayeth The Lord revelation. The Lord isn’t about to succumb to man in the last days.

Grasshopper,

I agree with you.

It was not my intent to question the authority of the General Authorities, but instead,

All of this is in reference to 1.) in the 30’s, 40’s and early 50’s when one of our targets was the Catholic Church, because they believed that the Pope was infallible and we knew, at that time, that only God the father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit was infallible and we thought it was terrible that anyone would believe than, that anyone other than the God Head could be infallible.

and 2.) I think all of us from the very top to the pre Deacon, need to be very careful in what we believe, what we think, and what we talk about regarding certain target groups, weather it be women’s right to choose, sexual preference, or whom may or may not hold the priesthood, etc.

I am reminded on how it was taught in every ward of ever stake, in every state the Gospel of the War in Heaven clear up to about 1956. At that time, we were told by the General Authorities, that this theory was never gospel but only a few people’s idea of what the Black CURSE was about.

At that time, the GA told us that the war in heaven was not the case, but instead, it was Cane killing his brother, Able, and that caused the CURSE.

Soon later, in another GC we were told that the Cane and Able Cause for the Black Curse was just a theory and not Gospel and the truth is that we really do not know what the reason is, but in the hereafter, all things will be known onto us.

Later in 1978, it was made known to the GA that the time has come for all blacks to enjoy full membership including but not limited to the priesthood, the temple etc.

When questioned by the news media, if the new decision that came to the GA, (1978), came in the form of a dream, or a vision or if he had direct communication with God, the GA said that he only new that the time had come to make the change and that knowledge is what is causing him to bring about that change.

I do not believe that we still look on it as a CURSE, but instead, when given the opportunity, we find this part of our society a very intelligent, very gifted athletically, and musically, and academically. Times do change.

In the midst of all the change their is much confusion. When the confusion is settled, we are all better off because of the change. We need to be careful regarding the Gays and Lesbians. We may find out later, that our opposition to them were never gospel but only opinion.

1 Like

The reality of the confusion is pretty simple f you think about it, it never was revelation this never could be confirmed by any subsequent revelation. The Lord has outlined how to receive revelation and when confusion or stupor of thought is the result, personal opinions can linger in. This is a clear case of Brigham Young missinderstanding and the rest could never get a confirmation or never asked for one and simply ran with it till the Q12 finally had the members needed to get past this and recognize the errors of their predecessors.

The way the church is currently structured sometimes you have to wait for certain men to pass on before wrongs can be made right, we currently have this situation going on as well.

1 Like

I agree the reasons were opinions. But the directive was not. And, the directive President Kimball received was revelation and not opinion or from political pressure. It’s why we have it in our cannonized scripture.

As far as gays and lesbians, homosexual acts are commandments not to do. Not opinion. This is contained in the Scriptures. It’s opposed to the Plan of Salvation. Never going to change.

That’s your opinin. But not fact. Revelation doesn’t need to be confirmed by subsequent revelations. Where did you manufactor that one up from? LOL!

Yes, other Prophets inquired of The Lord and did not receive revelation to change the ban. President Kimball received revelation and that is why it’s cannonized in our scriptures.

While I think your opinion is valid to some degree I don’t believe you are understanding true revelation the way it is meant to be.

Take section 89 of the D&C for example. At the time Joseph Smith received the revelation it was not a commandment. The revelation went through several progressive steps over the next 50+ years as the general population of the church became accustomed to it. Almost a century later it became a commandment and requirement for temple worthiness and those who wished to join the church through baptism. For some reason you believe it is okay to disobey it, yet still be temple worthy. You are wrong.

Regardless of how you feel about Brigham Young regarding the priesthood issue, that is the way it was. If the Lord had wanted it differently at the time he would have done something to make it happen, but he waited until the right time for it to change and it did. Do you not understand that all of these things happen and are done according to his schedule, not ours?

If and when you do understand that, you will clearly see that is how he works and how revelation works. He reveals a little bit at a time or all at once, depending on what he knows will be best for us. If what Brigham Young did at the time he did it was not right or part of the Lord’s eternal plan, it would have happened differently. But it didn’t and it has seemed to work out just fine if you have faith that He is in charge ultimately and not some imperfect man.

1 Like

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844):

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species…”

  • Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., January 2, 1845, History of the Church, v. 5, pp. 21-218

Prophet Brigham Young (1801 -1877):

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”

  • Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110

Prophet George Albert Smith (1870 – 1951):

“Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now… there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

  • LDS First Presidency (George Albert Smith), letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Lester E. Bush, Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, p. 42

Apostle Mark E. Peterson (1900 – 1984):

“We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would oil be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?”

  • Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1915 – 1985):

“However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”

  • Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 114

Others:

“Brigham Young made a very strong statement on this matter when he said, ‘… shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.’ God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be to 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… It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same… To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a ‘Nation of Priesthood holders.’”

  • Elder John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 54-55, 1967

As an outsider I probably shouldn’t comment here but I can’t resist. Read the above quotes. It seems like some of you maybe need to break off and start your own religion, because the modern church sure is way off course!

Can’t add to it. Well done!

It is easy to quote things that were said in the past and apply them to today’s situations and claim it is “modern” and current. Were you even alive at the time these quotes were made? Were you there or did you see/hear it in person?

They used to sacrifice animals a long time ago… and polygamy used to be a practice. Situations, circumstances and other things change. Have you ever said or done something, that you realized later, was in error or incorrect?

Not sure what your suggestion to “break off and start your own religion” means exactly because most, if not all, of us are fine with the way the “current modern church” is at this time.

What do you believe Mike? What is your personal belief system and whom do you put your faith in? I believe in a loving Heavenly Father, his son Jesus Christ, and I believe they speak their will to “modern day prophets” and that the things they want us to do and believe are given to us at the appropriate time and place with consideration for circumstances, etc. Yes, men are fallible and they make mistakes. I do and so do you. So what exactly is your point?

And by the way, you have every right to comment here. There is no requirement, that I am aware of, to be an “insider” in order to post your thoughts and ideas. Post all you like.

But Jim, isn’t that a little disingenuous? The latest quote I gave was in 1967, but I’m sure I could have found some later ones. So were talking less than 50 years at best. I thought God was supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever or something like that. What I meant about breaking off and starting your own church is how can you possibly reconcile this statement from a living prophet:

‘… shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.’

with God changing his mind one hundred years later? Is 100 years much of a time span in relation to eternity? I guess I just don’t get that. That said, I for one am certainly glad that the church is willing to change with the times and I think it would be irresponsible for them not too. And despite what some here seem to believe, I have no doubt that they will change their acceptance of gays in the next few decades. They already have actually. They payed dearly PR wise when they supported propositions that proscribed gay marriage recently, and seem to have learned their lesson. They lost many members who are gay or have gay family members and don’t think of themselves as ‘counterfeit’ or defective in some way. Still I would think the honest thing to do is to decide if you believe that BY was a prophet or if the modern day out of touch old guys in SLC are prophets. I don’t get how you can have it both ways.

Theae quotes and the hundreds of others from our church past, are why I have said before on this board that not everything a prophet or apostle says should be taken as “thus saith the Lord” revelation. All of these are valid quotes and they are all wrong when it comes to how the savior taught us to treat our fellow man. The recent essay on it, confirms these were philosophies of man, not doctrine from God, but there needs to be more done to undo the indoctrination on race than the essay that many still have not read nor even know it exists.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It does state that church leaders today condemn past leaders for their racism views and teachings, but there is more education and clarification needed as still far too many “believers” claim it was revelation to have the racism in the first place.

1 Like