Reaching out for support after reading the Essays

[omegaseamaster75]

For the record, this is false.

 

False, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false.

 

I hope that is sufficiently clear, but just in case it isn't, let me restate:

omegaseamaster75's statement above is FALSE.

 

Denying the Priesthood and temple blessings (past baptism) to blacks of African descent most definitely and provably WAS the doctrine of the Church from the mid-1800s until 1978. That is historical fact. It was. I was there.

 

Whatever it was you were trying to say, you got it wrong by saying that denying the Priesthood to blacks of African descent was not doctrine. Yes, it was. Period.

For the Record Vort is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. It was not doctrine, plain and simply it was not.........

 

 

Some quotes from the link that I have provided....Vort I will sit patiently wait for you to prove to me that it was doctrine of the church to deny the priesthood to Blacks....

 

 In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

 

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

 

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²⁴

 

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

[Vort]

Well, the recent Church essay "Race and the Priesthood" calls it a policy, not a doctrine.

 

 

 

 

I think you rushed a little bit stating almost categorically that it was doctrinal since historically speaking, the issue is quite complex but of course, I am open to see how did you reach that conclusion.

Calling it a "policy" means that that was how the Church acted. It was still a doctrine. It was taught, openly and unashamedly, that black men of African descent were not to be ordained to the Priesthood, and that those of black African descent could not enter the holy temple (other than the baptistry). That's doctrine, no two ways about it.

 

We all know perfectly well that the "not a doctrine" canard is an effort to distance the Church from its teachings about black Africans not being allowed to enjoy certain Priesthood blessings and responsibilities, instead blaming Brigham Young's supposed "racism". This will not work. It was indeed the doctrine of the Church that black African descendants could not receive those Priesthood blessings and responsibilities.

[Vort]

For the Record Vort is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. It was not doctrine, plain and simply it was not.........

 

 

Some quotes from the link that I have provided....Vort I will sit patiently wait for you to prove to me that it was doctrine of the church to deny the priesthood to Blacks....

 

 In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

 

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

 

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²⁴

 

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

Wrong, omegaseamaster. You are the one making the spurious and outrageous claim. You need to back it up. Prove that such was not the doctrine of the Church. (Helpful hint: That it was "policy" is unrelated to the fact that it was doctrine.)

[omegaseamaster75]

We are way off topic, but I am still waiting for you to show me in writing that it was the doctrine of the church to deny Blacks the priesthood. I have shown you in writing that it was the POLICY of the church not doctrine in an essay which is published by the church on their website as a record of the history of the church which discusses Race and the priesthood. 

[Vort]

We are way off topic, but I am still waiting for you to show me in writing that it was the doctrine of the church to deny Blacks the priesthood. I have shown you in writing that it was the POLICY of the church not doctrine in an essay which is published by the church on their website as a record of the history of the church which discusses Race and the priesthood. 

You have shown me nothing of importance. "Policy" just means how the Church acted. "Doctrine" means teachings of the Church. Do you really, truly need me to show you that the Church taught the those of black African descent were not to receive certain Priesthood blessings, such as ordination to the Priesthood and temple blessings? Really?

 

If you honestly need that, I can easily provide any number of proofs. In the meantime, I await evidence from you that the Church never in fact taught such things. Proving a negative is difficult, I know, but it might force you into recognizing what the Church actually did teach up until 1978.

[omegaseamaster75]

Conversation is over until you can prove to me that it was the doctrine of the church to deny Blacks the priesthood.....

 

Just so we are clear do you understand the difference between policy and doctrine?

 

David O. McKay believed that the ban was "not doctrine but...policy," as reported by Sterling McMurrin, his son Llewelyn McKay,^[and Elder Paul H. Dunn. President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought.

reference: Sterling M. McMurrin and and L. Jackson Newell, Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin On Philosophy, Education, and Religion

[Vort]

Conversation is over until you can prove to me that it was the doctrine of the church to deny Blacks the priesthood.....

 

End the conversation as you like. Historical fact cannot easily be brushed aside, whatever your political proclivities.

 

Just so we are clear do you understand the difference between policy and doctrine?

 

Let's see:

• Policy: How the Church acts
• Doctrine: What the Church teaches

How'd I do?

 

David O. McKay believed that the ban was "not doctrine but...policy," as reported by Sterling McMurrin, his son Llewelyn McKay,^[and Elder Paul H. Dunn. President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought.

reference: Sterling M. McMurrin and and L. Jackson Newell, Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin On Philosophy, Education, and Religion

 

Lol. Do you really think a Sterling McMurrin quote means anything to me? Maybe you should quote Joanna Brooks, too. Or John Dehlin.

[paulsifer42]

It seems like you two disagree on what a 'doctrine' is.

[Vort]

It seems like you two disagree on what a 'doctrine' is.

Well, I've given my definition. I'll be interested to see what omegaseamaster's is, and how it manages to deny that the Church ever taught what it very obviously did teach. (And in effect still teaches; I have never seen any Church teaching that suggests the Church leaders just made a mistake for 120+ years, a mistake that required revelation to correct.)

[paulsifer42]

Well, I've given my definition. I'll be interested to see what omegaseamaster's is, and how it manages to deny that the Church ever taught what it very obviously did teach. (And in effect still teaches; I have never seen any Church teaching that suggests the Church leaders just made a mistake for 120+ years, a mistake that required revelation to correct.)

 

I see 'doctrine' as more than teachings. I see them as truths. So, there is very little 'doctrine' in my book, but a great deal of policy, cultural norms, and inference.  I am also interested to see what his definition is.

[The Folk Prophet]

I see 'doctrine' as more than teachings. I see them as truths. So, there is very little 'doctrine' in my book, but a great deal of policy, cultural norms, and inference.  I am also interested to see what his definition is.

 

 

How do you reconcile that with doctrines of other churches? Do you mean that you define "doctrine" uniquely for the LDS church? But for every other church it means what it means - per the dictionary? Just for our church it has some mystical, elusive neo-meaning?

 

How very confusing.

[omegaseamaster75]

Well, I've given my definition. I'll be interested to see what omegaseamaster's is, and how it manages to deny that the Church ever taught what it very obviously did teach. (And in effect still teaches; I have never seen any Church teaching that suggests the Church leaders just made a mistake for 120+ years, a mistake that required revelation to correct.)

The church taught that Blacks should not receive the priesthood there is no denying what is plain and simple fact. However it was to policy of the church to teach that not the doctrine of the church.

 

Doctrine: 

1. Godhead

There are three separate personages in the Godhead: God the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (see Articles of Faith 1:1; Acts 7:55–56). The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22–23). Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.

 

Policy: (see HB1) 17. Church Policies  

This chapter consists of three sections. Each section includes subtopics in alphabetical order:

1. 1. 

   Administrative policies

2. 2. 

   Medical and health policies

3. 3. 

   Policies on moral issues

Without posting specific policies you can see that the church has specific policies on specific items, this does not make them doctrine.

 

We teach both one is undeniable fact the other is open to interpretation. 

 

Again please show me where is says the denying Blacks the priesthood was the DOCTRINE of the church.

[omegaseamaster75]

 

 

 

 

Lol. Do you really think a Sterling McMurrin quote means anything to me? Maybe you should quote Joanna Brooks, too. Or John Dehlin.

 

Discredit my reference if you want but, one of us has provided a reference the other has not.

[The Folk Prophet]

Here Vort. Since the precedent of any reference counts as much as any other has been established, you can reference me:

 

"Denying the priesthood to those of African descent was once a doctrine of the LDS church." - TFP

[omegaseamaster75]

Here Vort. Since the precedent of any reference counts as much as any other has been established, you can reference me:

 

"Denying the priesthood to those of African descent was once a doctrine of the LDS church." - TFP

My reference has the following credentials:  A.B. in history and an M.A. in philosophy. A Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Southern California and postdoctoral work at Columbia, Princeton, and Union Theological Seminary.

 

What are your credentials...just for reference...

[Suzie]

Perhaps the issue lies on the definition of doctrine.  It seems to me that the church’s current definition is that doctrine “resides” in the canonized standard works and the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles establishes church doctrine consistent with their collective understanding of the scriptures. Back in the 1940’s there was a letter where the First Presidency declared that the teachings of the curse of Cain and pre-existence fence-sitting were revealed doctrine.

 

 However, as we know, the church presently and clearly disavows those teachings:

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

 Can doctrine change? Does it need to be presented to the Church body for sustaining vote in order to become binding upon the membership? Was the ban doctrine, policy or a practice?

 

It seems to me that the Church is distancing itself from giving the Priesthood ban any doctrinal mantle (How could they state it is doctrinal and at the same time disavow the theories that caused its placement in the first place? Makes no sense) by calling it a policy, a practice that originated with Brigham Young.

[The Folk Prophet]

My reference has the following credentials:  A.B. in history and an M.A. in philosophy. A Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Southern California and postdoctoral work at Columbia, Princeton, and Union Theological Seminary.

 

What are your credentials...just for reference...

 

Unfair! Now credentials count?!

[mdfxdb]

https://www.lds.org/manual/basic-doctrines/basic-doctrines?lang=eng

 

 

Reference to doctrine.

 

If the restriction on blacks having the priesthood ever was doctrine, then it must have changed.   

 

From the LDS Newsroom:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

[The Folk Prophet]

How could they state it is doctrinal and at the same time disavow the theories that caused its placement in the first place?

 

We do not know what caused it's placement in the first place. We only know that the theories used to explain it have been disavowed.

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's a few "doctrine" quotes for you omega...  (emphases mine)

 

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." - George Albert Smith

 

"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." - George Albert Smith

 

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." - First Presidency, Statement of The First Presidency July 17 1947

 

"The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God." - N. Eldon Tanner

Edited December 15, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

Lets clear out the terms we can not agree on and get to the basics...

 

From Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball the Church taught that it was the commandment of God that Blacks could not hold the priesthood or go to the temple.  Call it doctrine, call it policy, call it what ever you want.  That is what happened.

 

It is a huge deal to disenfranchise a whole group of people like that.  If God did it they we have faith that God knew what he was doing and would make it right, in his own time and in his own way.  If man did it we have no such promise.

 

The church has come out and said that that our prior speculation on why God would give such a command...  Is not helpful or useful now that the command was done away.  And we need to put away any kind of pretext for racial divisions.

[mdfxdb]

 

Here's a few "doctrine" quotes for you omega...  (emphases mine)

 

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." - George Albert Smith

 

"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." - George Albert Smith

 

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." - First Presidency, Statement of The First Presidency July 17 1947

 

"The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God." - N. Eldon Tanner

 

Sounds like the personal opinions of the church leaders on this one.  Turns out they were wrong.....

 

http://www.mormonnew...cle/race-church

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

[jerome1232]

Yet not one person get's hung up that the Tribe of Levi was the only tribe with the priesthood.


Odd that.

[mdfxdb]

I will, to give the benefit of the doubt to our fearless leaders that they were using the words "policy" and "doctrine" interchangeably.  But of course we know that they are not interchangeable.  

[Vort]

The church taught that Blacks should not receive the priesthood there is no denying what is plain and simple fact.

 

Then why do you continue to deny that it was, and is, the doctrine of the Church that black people of African descent were not allowed to hold the Priesthood or participate in temple rites between the mid-1800s and 1978? You contradict yourself.

 

Doctrine: 

1. Godhead

There are three separate personages in the Godhead: God the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (see Articles of Faith 1:1; Acts 7:55–56). The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22–23). Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.

 

Policy: (see HB1) 17. Church Policies  

This chapter consists of three sections. Each section includes subtopics in alphabetical order:

1. 1. 

   Administrative policies

2. 2. 

   Medical and health policies

3. 3. 

   Policies on moral issues

 

I have not even the least little idea of what you are trying to illustrate with the above. In neither case is the term "doctrine" or "policy" defined.

 

Without posting specific policies you can see that the church has specific policies on specific items, this does not make them doctrine.

 

We teach both one is undeniable fact the other is open to interpretation.

 

Policy = action

Doctrine = teaching

 

If I understand you correctly, your claim is that the Church never taught that those of black African descent were not allowed to hold the Priesthood or participate in temple rites. Your claim, rather, is that the Church simply had a policy to that effect.

 

This is simply false. TFP has already provided a few quotations establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the very highest leaders of the Church, even the president himself, taught this doctrine. It was not "mere policy".

 

Consider: Policy is set by Church leaders as seems them good. Why would President Kimball have been required to receive divine revelation to change this practice? If the doctrine were "mere policy", as you insist, a simple letter from the First Presidency would have sufficed.

 

Again please show me where is says the denying Blacks the priesthood was the DOCTRINE of the church.

 

TFP has done a bang-up job of posting a few such quotes. A word to the wise is sufficient.