Hey 3 Mormons Family! This topic is extremely multi-faceted. There's no way we could touch on every point of policy, criticism, and questions on the topic in an 11-minute video. We wish we could, honestly. It's such an important conversation to be had. So ask away. We are always down to have a discussion. Loves, ian
Hey, Ian, if a Mormon in 1949 could not rely on the Prophet for labeling something a 'direct commandment from the Lord', how can Mormons in 2017 rely on what the Prophet says? Isn't there supposed to be an unbroken chain of authority leading back to and originating with Jesus? These are the facets that I think you ought to address in a follow-up video.
Also, Jane Manning James wanted to be sealed in the temple. She was sealed to Joseph as a servant. "James continued to ask that she and her family be given the ordinance of adoption so that they could be sealed together forever. Her justification for asking to be the exception to the church's rule was Emma Smith's offer in 1844 to have her sealed to the Smith family as a child. James was now reconsidering her decision, and asked to be sealed to the Smiths. Her requests were again refused. Instead, the First Presidency "decided she might be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done, a special ceremony having been prepared for the purpose." The ceremony took place on May 18, 1894, with Joseph F. Smith acting as proxy for Joseph Smith, and Bathsheba W. Smith acting as proxy for James (who was not allowed into the temple for the ordinance). In the ceremony, James was "attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Joseph Smith and in this capacity be connected with his family and be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor"" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Manning_James
*Black Men and The Priesthood:* “Several Africans who had received the gospel message waited with great faith for many years until the Church came to their countries. One such pioneer was Joseph William Billy Johnson of Cape Coast, Ghana. ‘As a young man, I started searching for spiritual peace,’ says Joseph Johnson of his early religious searching in Ghana. “‘It was my prayer that the Lord should show me which church to join.’ Then in 1964 he met a man who had literature from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ‘I read the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and I believed that testimony. I believed it was a great message for the whole world. So I read the Book of Mormon and found it to be true-the true word of God.’ “Then one morning about 5:30 A.M., Joseph Johnson had a sacred experience. ‘While about to prepare for my daily work,’ he says, ‘I heard my name mentioned thrice: ‘Johnson, Johnson, Johnson. If you will take up my work as I will command you, I will bless you and bless your land.’ Trembling and in tears, I replied, ‘Lord, with thy help I will do whatsoever you will command me.’ From that day onward, I was constrained by that Spirit to go from street to street and door to door. … I did exactly as the Lord commanded me. I couldn’t help it, I had to share the message.’ *Tireless Missionary* “Even though he was not baptized until 1978, Brother Johnson started gathering people. ‘The Lord knew we had no missionaries around to help us, so He directed us by the Spirit,’ says Brother Johnson, who continued proselyting and teaching the gospel in an untiring and zealous manner, though he had not yet been baptized and held no priesthood authority. “During this time, Brother Johnson experienced opposition from those who didn’t believe that the Book of Mormon or any other book could be equal to the Bible. Some shouted accusations that Johnson was anti-Christ, and others distributed literature attacking the Church. A local newspaper even printed pictures of the Presidents of the Church and wrote degrading statements about each one. “But as opposition increased, so did Brother Johnson’s determination to teach the gospel message. People began to listen and believe. His faith increased, and he felt the Lord blessing him in his work. One day, after some members of a crowd to whom he was preaching ‘hooted’ at him, about 40 people came forward and said they wanted to listen to the message. Their names were recorded and a meeting place was arranged. “By April 1964, Joseph Johnson had formally organized a church patterned after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. He wrote to President David O. McKay and received additional literature and letters encouraging him to study the gospel and to help the people until, as President McKay wrote, ‘in the Lord’s own due time, missionaries would be sent.’ “Brother Johnson organized congregations, selected and trained leaders, and continued a vigorous proselyting program. Of his missionary labors, he said: ‘I used to walk 50 miles a day and wasn’t bothered about it. Whenever I walked, I reflected on the early missionaries, and I gained strength because it seemed as if I was following in the footsteps of the pioneers. Their example inspired me-the way some died in the snow and the way they toiled to bring the truth. They were great people.’ “With the growth came struggles. Once, while facing a serious problem, Brother Johnson fasted for three days. He then knelt and prayed for help. That night he dreamed he saw the Prophet Joseph Smith and President Brigham Young. They assured him that missionaries would come soon and that he should keep studying the scriptures. “As a result of this manifestation, Brother Johnson developed a great love and appreciation for those two early prophets. He even chose to name his son Brigham-likely the only young man at that time in all of Ghana with that name. “By 1968 Joseph Johnson had built up four congregations, so he quit his job and took up ‘a full-time missionary work.’ He farmed to support his family and lived off his retirement pension and donations from his followers. But the struggles proved to be too difficult for his wife, and she left him and the children. The divorce caused him great anguish. While struggling with his pain, he saw in a dream his only brother, who had died seven years before. “‘My brother asked me why I was weeping,’ Brother Johnson says of the experience. ‘I said, ‘My wife has left me.’ My brother said: ‘Don’t worry. You have chosen the right thing, the true church.’ He said he would sing a song from my Church, and he sang ‘Come, Come, Ye Saints.’ That was the first time I had heard that hymn. He said: ‘Don’t leave the Church, my brother. Don’t leave the Church! Please see that I am baptized.’ “‘It was my brother who enlightened me about baptism for the dead and brought it to my knowledge. At times I still weep because I imagine thousands of people behind the veil who are expecting baptism. I learned these doctrines before the missionaries arrived, so when they taught us it didn’t seem strange. The missionaries simply confirmed what we knew.’” *(Continued in Part 2)*
Brigham Young didn't advocate for mixed raced people - and the LDS church did have segregated congregations - mostly based on languages. I'm sorry, you're information is misguided. Brigham Young wasn't a "little" bit racist. Young also claimed that those who mixed with the seed of Cain, African Americans, would be damned. Please don't try to minimalize his bigotry. And I haven't even mentioned his misogynistic practices. And, if the LDS church is the BEST church for Black people, then why has the church NEVER had a member of the qaurom of twelve who's Black, Hispanic, Asian, or any other race - other than White males? You guys are clearly good guys - and unfortunately completely mislead - not by the information you have - but rather by the information you don't have. BTW, the church has never officially defined the difference of policy and doctrine. Because in the end, what difference does it make?
You are spot on my friend , I'm Indian who live in the Caribbean , been a member of the LDS church for eleven years now and I never saw the racism in the Church until I myself was a victim of it . The Church teaches a doctrine of foreordination that classifies races on obedience, skin color , blessings ( includes wealth of a nation ) , which is mostly taught in the temple . Anything discussed , taught or acted out in the LDS temples are regarded as too sacred to reveal and members are under oath and covenant not to reveal them to anyone who hasn't gone to the temple because those people have not been " Prepared to receive ". In my country racial mixing is prevalent , Indians are regarded as black also , because the LDS church has classed us as such because of mixing and blessings that we presumably don't have. I only began understanding these things when I began dating a white woman, the missionaries specifically tried to teach me doctrines why I should not marry her . The LDS church is rooted in Freemasonry and racism and no matter what these clowns say that will never change
girlhead4477 They probably will ignore my comment like it was never made . Imagine two elder missionaries came to my house to specifically tell me that " Brother Ganess you made a choice in the Pre-mortal existence to build up the church in this part of the world and if you marry that woman ( who happen to be American ) you have to bring her here". What blatant racism towards me whose calling was Ward Secretary at the time! It is the racist policy of the church that had me research , because I knew other members who were persecuted for dating out of their race , secondly I knew the elders did not act on their own that day and were carrying out a policy of the church. Boyd K. Packer gave a talk titled " Follow The Rule" which he vehemently counseled the BYU students to stick to marrying people of your own race .
Thank you for taking the time to refute this video. It’s honestly sad how this young black Mormon has to do mental gymnastics to harmonize what he knows is true about God’s view of races and the teachings of Joseph.
Bullcrap. We did not have segregated congregations, and our quorum of the 12 has an asian guy in it. Throughout most of church history most of the members were white, and blacks could not have the priesthood which is why our quorums were mostly all white, and after the ban was lifted most of our members were still white. However, now that we have more people from other ethnicities joining the church we have general authorities from other ethnicities so it's only a matter of time before some of them become apostles.
So, if Brigham Young was, according to your own words, "a little bit racist," and yet none of his contemporaries could see that, what kind of prejudices do current prophets possibly have that rank & file Mormons don't currently see, but which are also just as wrong as racism?
Kinda like when the Mormon church claimed they had revelation that children of LGBTQ parents could not be baptized until they were 18 and disavow their parents lifestyle. But after huge public push back, bad press, and mass resignations, the Mormon god changed his mind less then 3 years later and reversed the revelation. Mormon revelation is amazing, it seems to follow the money.
Some of the apostles were a “little bit racist” as well. They didn’t want to teach the Gospel to gentile or those who were non Jewish. Remember we’re sculpted by the environment around us, and Brigham Young’s time was of a white superiority time. The Apostle’s time was of ethnic and religious clashing between the Jews, Romans, and Gentile.
@@randonymous2793 But what about after 1964? Why did your church continue to segregate after the civil rights act was passed in the USA? Why did your church fight against the civil rights movement and continue their hate campaign after society had already accepted change?
@@juneholley1813 I don’t think it’s that, that’s not really doctrine it’s administrative policy, controlled by the prophets personal opinions direct revelation from God. So the prophet, seeing how people react so negatively to this policy could change his mind because that would bring more people to the church
@@juneholley1813 our church never fought against civil rights, we definitely had racist members, and that’s one thing I dislike about our church, our culture gets in the way of our doctrine. Also I guarantee there probably weren’t even 1000 lds clan members
@@towardcivicliteracy Its a knock. Mormons must be able to twist and bend the narrative that is always changing to preserve faith, its comical. Granted most mormons don't know the churches real history, but that is changing. This is why the Mormon church is loosing so many members. If you know the history and the evolution of theology and still believe you are a special kind of stupid.
"Hey we have a black guy hosting a discussion about blacks and the priesthood, but let's change the thumbnail for just the white guy to be on it, and use whatever google image we can find because we HAVE to remove Kwaku"
@b jam Mormonism is racism. Its so sad to see someone with African decent defending segregation in the Mormon church that continued until 1978. Brainwashing on full display.
@@georgezeller6046 he’s not defending segregation. In fact he’s acknowledging it and saying that that is not a belief we have today, and that pretty much the entire world was racist at that point. He also says that they were one of the most progressive parties and held church meetings without segregation. Did you even watch the video?
@@yaboivids-parkourpranksmor5491 nothing holy about a "religion" that updates its "Bible" because it was racist without acknowledging that it was racist.
@Carlos Morales but, unlike other Christian denominations, racism is a part of their doctrine, its literally in their "Bible" & was supported by their "prophets." By admiting & renouncing racism they acknowledge that their "religion" is a lie & has always been nothing more than a racist cult. There is absolutely nothing holy about the LDS "church". For their religion to have any credibility they'd have to follow their racist doctrines. & embrace ideas like "the curse of cain" & "spill the blood of interracial couples," even while *burning* at the stake...
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
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. The First Presidency
@@chrisblanc663 Feel free to provide the "context" you feel is missing... Or just continue to bury your head in the sand and make weak excuses and then run away from actually backing up those excuses with any sort of rational argument. You don't get simultaneously claim that the church is immune from the men it appoints as "prophets" being able to lead the church into false doctrine, and then retroactively claim that any time false doctrine was part of the church, it was just the fact that they were "acting as men" when they led the church into adopting that false doctrine. Gotta pick one. Either the words of your "prophets" are infallible, and the same as scripture, just as valid as if God himself had turned up to say it himself; or they're just a bunch of clueless con men who are making this stuff up as they go along while they pretend it's all coming directly through them from God himself. Pick one.
frame 9:40 Bruce R Mcconkie said in regardingnyesteryears prophecies, " We spoke with limited understanding..." Actually they spoke as prophets, and clear understanding.
Either they are ignorant of church history or they are gas lighting. I would expect more form a prophet that talks directly to god. Why didn't God send an angel with a flaming sword to stop racism in the church? God sent an angel with a flaming sword for rather disgusting reasons.Why did I attend seminary decades ago? The doctrine and things I was taught have changed.
@@gretasalazar2935 The bible is demonstratively fiction. Dont try to use one delusional fable to explain the rational of another. Religion is used for financial gain and control. Some religions are worse then others but all are equally false.
Andrew Steadman exactly. Like Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives. Like, David did that in the bible AND GOD PUNISHED HIM FOR IT. But God didn't punish Joseph Smith? It makes no sense.
@@johnlewis6526 Maybe god punished him for grooming children, marrying girls as young as 14 and other married mens wives, and lying about these relationships to his only legal wife Emma, church members, and the authorities.
“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
They were wrong. Kimball, Hinkley, Monson, and Nelson have made that quite clear that those erroneous beliefs have no place in the gospel of Christ, doesn't stop some idiots though.
In October 1960, Kimball discussed the Indian placement program at the General Conference. He said that Natives who participated in the program were gradually turning lighter, becoming 'white and delightsome. "The day of the Lamanites is nigh," Kimball said, claiming that Navajo placement students were "as light as Anglos" and, in one case, several shades lighter than parents "on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather."
Friday OCT 7, 1960-Spencer W Kimball "These Indian Elders are well-groomed, neat, smiling, and equal to their white companions...I have heard them bear their witness, saw then shed tears of joy, heard them express the affection for loved ones." "In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty are as light as Anglos; five are darker but just as delightsome." "Surely the number of deprived ones is being reduced, and opportunity is knocking on their door. Hundreds of Lamanites are serving in mission fields both in the Americas and the island of the sea. Lamanites are exercising their Priesthood and raising their families in righteousness. God bless the Lamanites and hasten their day of total emancipation from the thralldom of their yesterday. " So your quote about being "light as Angelos" is actually talking about a photograph of missionaries. Two groups, one with lighter skin, the other with darker skin, but both "...just as delightsome."
@@brettmajeske3525 You are a disgusting apologist. Stop trying to confuse the issue. Your church was wrong. They lead us astray. The Mormon church sleeps in the bed they made.
@@juneholley1813 how is he confusing anybody when he actually quoted something unlike everyone else who is just saying random things. Anything can be taken out of context.
You are both lying for the lord. My father was given clear instructions not to proselytize black Brazilians throughout his mission in Brazil back in the late '60s.
Drunken Reaper well said, and it was always official Mormon doctrine, official presidency statement confirming Brigham Young’s teachings, I think the year was 1949
@@coultergill7728 they may not be from africa, but show a 20th century Mormon someone of color and bam, "no priesthood" "not worthy" or lesser than. this religion is on it's last legs, the old english conjecture, wicked and vile statements made from so called "prophets" and their "revelations" that have failed for nearly two century's are finally coming to light and people are abandoning this pagan fictitious masquerade for Christ. THE real Christ that created all, not the one that was "created" with Satan as his brother..oh mormon theology how you disgust the mind, and how the mind vomit's when it hears your so called "logic"
In1954, in a sermon to BYU students Apostle Mark E Peterson said "If a Negro is faithful all his days he can enter the Celestial Kingdom. *He will go there as a servant*..
Which was his personal opinion and never official doctrine. What do the scriptures say? Official Declarations and Proclamations? I do not defend the personal opinions of Peterson. I believe to be utterly wrong. Intend other Prophets and Apostles have openly disagreed with his views, including David O McKay, Hugh B Brown, Spencer W Kimball, Gordon B Hinkley, Thomas Monson, and of course the Apostle who replaced him in the 12 and current Prophet Russel M Nelson. Again I am not defending Racism, nor am I defending racist beliefs of past members. New revelation was received, old beliefs were disavowed.
“You see some classes of the human family … are black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses)
@@towardcivicliteracyI believe the "It" he's referring to is the priesthood ban and the racism found in the BOM and the POGP, and yes to the guy who's asking the question , it is doctrine. The entire church ( all the General Authorities) during the time of the priesthood ban expressed the same sentiments on why blacks were inferior by virtue of their non valiancy in the Premortal Existence's war in heaven against Satan and his followers , Moses 7:22 , And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam, and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. Abraham 1:24-26. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land . 25; Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. 26; Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his Kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father , who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood. So we see direct reference being made to a Priesthood cursing through the lineage of Ham the son of Noah , who the Church believe is the lineage of the African people that's why past General Authorities taught that blacks could never hold the priesthood in this life.
@@katog Actually they often had mutually exclusive different rationalities. Some used the Ham theory, others rejected it for the pre-existence theory, and others had still other theories. When David O McKay asked the Apostles of his time (1950's) there were four different understandings. He then proclaimed it was tradition and not doctrine.
@@brettmajeske3525 I did quote scripture to support my claim, from what you are saying , does that mean that the scriptures aforementioned are misinterpreted? Saying those were tradition my President McKay is too vague to explain away what even Prophets of the LDS church taught , take brother Brigham for example. In Christianity, you are either led by divine revelation or not , in Mormonism, you either belong to the Church of the lamb of God or the Great and abominable Church of the Devil . There is no Luke warm in the gospel, in light of that being said , rhetorically speaking , how many LDS Prophets contradicted each other? These inconsistencies is clear conviction that the Mormon Church is NOT led by revelation and has since adopted a stance that the prophets only teach basic doctrine and refrain from expunging on "new" revelation.
@@katog “...does that mean that the scriptures aforementioned are misinterpreted?”
Yes. As Talmage pointed out in the early 1900’s, it is a leap to extend a scripture about a specific family line to an entire ethnic group. Especially as that scripture was from an Old Testament time frame. He noted that as the Aaronic Priesthood was limited to specific family lines before the coming of Christ, but is now available to all, using the passage in the Book of Abraham to apply modernly is counter to the teachings of the Book of Mormon and D&C. Interestingly enough, BY didn’t use the Book of Abraham as justification, and by the 1940’s it was the minority view among Church Leadership.
Specifically Pharaoh is claiming the right to the priesthood because his mother is a daughter of Ham, at a time it could only pass through the male line.
It should be noted that few (if any) Prophets quoted the BoA when speaking on the matter. Most of the sermons I’ve found using this approach were from the Quorum of the Seventies.
The lack of valor theory, which many thought was mutually exclusive with the Ham theory, became more popular in the twentieth century. It avoids the whole respecter of persons issues. But again it wasn’t as universally taught as you present. Specifically both Brigham Young and John Taylor denied it way back in the beginning of the Ban. It seemed to be a theory espoused by Orson Pratt.
Again there are very few statements from Prophets directly supporting that theory. Most official statements in the 1900’s say something about it being instituted by God for unknown reasons.
Indeed when McKay asked a Apostolic committee to investigate the origins of the ban after the death of George Albert Smith, the Twelve could not come to a consensus whether the supporting doctrine was lineage, valor, or unknown. No record of a revelation instituting the ban could be found, and evidence that blacks had been ordained when JS was prophet was discovered. Something that most of the Apostles of the time seemed to be unaware of.
That is when McKay started insisting on using ‘policy’, ‘practice’, or ‘tradition’ when talking about the ban. He felt that it was so persuasive that it would require a Revelation to change. There were at least three attempts between 1950 and 1978 to change it as a matter of policy, the last two times failing by a single vote.
“In Christianity, you are either led by divine revelation or not…”
Well the Curse of Cain was a common belief taught by most American Protestants of the time period. Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, and others would not ordain Blacks either. Free slaves had to start their own version of the Baptists faith because white congregations would not even allow them to be baptized. BY and the Prophets who followed him never claimed Revelatory doctrine when explaining the ban. They either relied on ‘common knowledge’ of beliefs they had been taught before joining the LDS Church; or extrapolated theories; or said it must be of God, but didn’t know why.
“...how many LDS Prophets contradict each other?”
Well that depends on context. They certainly have had differing opinions on different subjects. They are human after all. It is an unprofitable servant that must be commanded in all things. So the claim has never been that every stray utterance is scripture.
As far as the priesthood ban, different Prophets have had different opinions on why it existed, but actual implementation was consistent. It was never about skin color, but genealogy. South Pacific (including Maori), Native American, and other dark skinned ethnic groups were always permitted the priesthood. In Brazil, where it was not easy to tell who was descended from Africa or not, that standard was to error on the side of ordaining. George Albert Smith, who was one of the most conservative Prophets said it was better to give the Priesthood to someone who did not qualify, than restrict it from someone who did.
Even when they disagreed on why, every Prophet always stated that Blacks would receive the Priesthood someday, all the way back to BY. Many thought it would not happen in their lifetimes, but they all preached it would happen.
@@brettmajeske3525 I like your analysis and the support you provided to validate your claims , although I might not agree fully. Are you aware of Boyd K. Packer's talk titled "Follow the rule" which he gave in 1977 before students attending BYU? If your thesis is correct, then why was separatist doctrine still being taught in the form of this talk, especially concerning interracial marriage? Why are missionaries still being taught in Mtcs and by their respective mission presidencies all over the world to discourage interracial dating? If you are not familiar with that talk , it can still be found on Intellectual Reserve Inc. , which you should know is an official LDS subsidiary that is responsible for all Church publications.
This is one of the most painfully ridiculous, apologetic pro-mormon videos on the internet.... and that says a lot. If anyone ever needs an example of stirring something bad, just to end up making it worse, this video is it.
yep. And it gets worse when you read the comments and see all the Mormons defend their cult and this behavior. So this isn't just a couple rouge Mormons who made a crazy video. Racism is Mormonism.
@@juneholley1813 I would like to see America apologizing to the church for persecuting, for breaking promises and for making our members to suffer so much and for so long. See, there’s always something we can claim in our sides, but as we can see, nobody is dying, crying or demanding anything from the government bc the Country did never apologize for what they have done in the past. The past is not in our hands, that’s why it’s important to judge wisely and learn from it.
"Brigham Young was a little bit racist." Actual Brigham Young: "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."
@@brettmajeske3525 Was a supposed prophet anointed by God to forward his creation along. This view leaves God completely fine skipping over generations of race relations until the mass majority of non-religious folk changed their minds. That’s not inspiration, that’s following norms. Mormonism should have led society out of their racism. Not held on to racist priesthood rules until society had already changed their minds to a large degree.
@@saketeas2060 That is certainly one opinion. Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff all chose to accommodate, at least in public, federal racial laws hoping such a policy would reduce antagonism to Plural Marriage. Interestingly though is the fact that in spite of public endorsements, they never actually enforced them. Mixed race marriages continued in Utah with no public arrests until after the anti-polygamy laws forced the LDS leadership into hiding. They were fighting a war on many fronts, and thought continuing to publicly call for equality like they did in Missouri would result in even more harassment from the Federal Government. There is a you tube channel call Anxiously Engaged that goes into the history in greater detail in the video entitled, "Are Mormons Racists?". I am not claiming that Young made the right decisions, the fact that the Church officially has disavowed many of his attributed public statements makes that clear. Just that the topic is more complicated than simple racism, certainly given the conflicting statements attributed to the man.
@@brettmajeske3525 But the man doesn’t matter. The God is what matters. So I’m asking if God utilized a prophet to reform certain things (abstaining from coffee) but chose to allow, and encourage (by ways of priesthood restrictions) other things like racial inequality.
With this perspective, this means that I can also support the LGBTQ community and issues in good conscience despite somethings that the brethren have said?
this is a very very good question.......my one question still is that is there biblical precedent for same sex marriage being permitted biblically? Anywhere?
The Church already advocates for equal employment and housing opportunities for the LGBTQ community. However we have commandments concerning marriage and chastity and until the living prophet directs otherwise, they are what we keep.
Pryoslim you can do whatever the hell you want man. It’s your agency. You don’t have to follow everything a leader tells you. Enjoy your life and have fun, do good to others and you’ll be fine.
@@towardcivicliteracy Like the Mormon church helped blacks live the gospel of Jesus Christ from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball by segregation and banning then from salvation while claiming it was doctrinal for over 100 years... now only to disavow this earlier doctrine and behavior. Today the churches teachings and treatment of those in the LGBTQ community mirrors their earlier teachings against Blacks. How long until the church disavows this doctrine against the LGBTQ community and the apologists start justifying the mistake? The church will once again end up on the wrong side of history.
At 3:40 you say that Brigham "advocated for mixed race people." I would like to see your source please. Here is an actual source of his thoughts on that exact subject. “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.” - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110
Yeah, these poor dudes could not possibly have worse information. To claim Young advocated he was in favor of mixed races when the reality was he stated that they deserved death, could not be more ignorant. Man, it's actually sad. And to claim the ban wasn't doctrine when multiple prophets said it was doctrine and an eternal principle, as well as also being written in the Book of Abraham, also demonstrates some awful research or just straight up lies.
@@Alex808thegreat oh GREAT! That takes care of it right? Everything's good then! Shew. I was getting worried that this church and its leaders were just making it up! Oh wait, that's what you are insinuating. Turns out Brigham Young was just a huge racist who was lying when he stated it was God's law and God was talking to him in the journal of discourses. So glad that bullet was dodged. Otherwise that would look really bad. But I forgot about the old "that's not official" card that can get pulled every time a man that supposedly talks to God says things like interracial couple should die or he needs to have sex with another teen. Doesn't sound made up at all. So glad we have modern day prophets that can get us the correct "truths" about 23% of the time.
@@Alex808thegreat This issue didn't live and die with Brigham Young. Every Prophet after Brigham Young still faced the issue and claimed to have direct communication with God, saying God forbade it. It wasn't until the church received political pressure from the US government that, by a huge coincidence, God had changed his mind (which he does sometimes, apparently, like with polygamy).
@@echosmyth5021 I wasn't talking about blacks and the priesthood. I was talking about the other stuff about blacks. Also if you watch that video segment I shared with Ryan Gladden you'll find that Brigham Young was never racist. Those lies come from a tabloid source known as the Journal of Discourses, and a misunderstanding of the temporary restriction on blacks and the priesthood. Also, I am well aware that my church's general authorities had to spend decades praying for blacks to be allowed to have the priesthood before it actually happened, and that it happened at a politically convenient time. Also, the Old Testament has instances where God commanded people to practice polygamy, and other instances where God was against it so when you criticize us for believing that God changes his mind about polygamy from time to time you're really just criticizing your own Bible.
@@brettmajeske3525 EXACTLY!!!!! It doesn't matter what skin color you have. A Freaking Prophet who was dark skin colored was litterly a prophet of God, and Christ had to litterly tell them to put him back in the records because of their misunderstandings.
It's an issue of historical usage. Many find it easier even though it is not really accurate. The Restriction really had nothing to do with skin color as certain dark skinned groups like the Mauri and Hindus were always permitted ordination.
@@brettmajeske3525 Was your church wrong to segregate members with African decent from the temples and priesthood under every prophet from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball? Please condemn these actions here and now if you truly don't offer justifications for their racism as you claim.
@Confirmed Russian Bot There is no scriptures in the bible that says the curse of cain was black skin . The BoM goes all the way dark skin is a curse .
Any religion which claims direct revelation from an all powerful, all knowing divine being cannot possibly change doctrine. Did god get it wrong? Did the prophet get it wrong? If god got it wrong then whatever it is, it isn't a god. If the prophet got it wrong then nothing that prophet says can ever be taken as the truth.
Justin Miller I would very much stress that one shouldn’t compare the Bible to the BoM. The Old Testament never condones rape, murder, polygamy, etc. that’s just false. It tells the history of the Jewish people, through their ups and downs, sins against God and faithfulness. For the genocide aspect, I recommend checking what Trent Horn’s (Catholic apologist) opinions of the matter. And the resurrection is a historical fact, so if you wanna discount the Old Testament from your current understanding of the situation, I would understand but not condone such a decision. But the New Testament and the resurrection are hands down true. Keep researching my brother and thanks
Justin Miller I’m Catholic, so I won’t even attempt to defend the LDS church. ok I just wanna make sure we’re reading the same exodus 21. I read it as rather enlightened for its time. it doesn’t sound that bad to me, and it’s something that occurred thousands of years ago. The ordinance was to treat the women slaves with more honor and respect especially, and if the son takes the married slave as his own, then the master should in turn treat her as a daughter. And slaves could gain freedom after 6-7 years. Also, from my understanding, the slavery back then was not even close to the horrific chattel slavery in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. chattel slavery in the Americas was life long, split families up in cruel ways. exodus prohibits against selling slaves to a foreign people (aka outside of the community, apart from Israelite morals). Pagans were doing child sacrifice and all sorts of horrible idol worship. Lastly, Jesus says to the Jewish leaders that Moses allowed divorce to occur, because of the hardness of their hearts. Perhaps God also allowed these forms of slavery because he knew the people’s hearts were still far from him at that time. God has a permissive will, meaning he can allow bad things to occur, so a greater good can come of it. Thanks
Justin Miller exodus doesn’t say that the Israelites could rape the slaves whenever they wanted, or murder them, or whipped them until they died. That was trans-Atlantic chattel slavery, not the slavery in exodus.
Genuine question. If this was not doctrine, then why pray to recieve revelation to over turn it? Also how does the " when the prophet speaks the talkings done" fit in with the "they were speaking as men"
This is an official statement by the first presidency. Don't let these lying apologists say its not doctrinal. 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. The First Presidency
@@josephsorg So where are the names of the Twelve backing up this statement as doctrinal? There are fifteen witnesses to Kimball's revelatory experience. Plus the unanimous support of the Presiding Bishopric, and the Seven Presidents of the Seventy. Not to mention that after George Albert Smith's death, both of his then councilors changed their minds. McKay said that they believed it must have been a Revelation because the alternate view was hardly conceivable. Yet after thoroughly searching the scriptures as well as the private papers of past prophets he could only conclude it was not Doctrine but a practice/policy based on traditions.
@@brettmajeske3525 The official first presidency statement about the doctrinal justification for the racism and segregation practiced by the Mormon church was made by President George Albert Smith and his two counselors, J. Reuben Clark and David O McKay. This statement was released by the first presidency of the church. The churches position was clear. Again your apologetic defenses of this racism and horrible treatment of people with African decent is ridiculous. The Mormon church has a very clear history of racism and segregation from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball. There is no excuse for this behavior. None. The church was from for over 120 years. Period. Stop trying to confuse the issue and stop justifying racism and segregation that lasted long after society changed.
@@josephsorg So the fact that David O McKay, three years later changed their position does not matter to you? When McKay became Prophet he said is was a practice not a doctrine, based on tradition. I admit it is problematic, but more nuanced than you give it credit for. And when you say it was released by the First Presidency, you know that is not true. It was a private letter to a BYU professor, who latter published it publicly. Not that it matters much, as in neither case was it confirmed by the Quorum of the Twelve. Still it is funny you hang you hat on a private communication as the ultimate word on official policy, when public statement made five years later disagree. There was an official statement released in 1969, sent both as a new release and as a letter to all the Stake Presidents and Bishops of the Church. Why do you never cite that letter? Again I encourage you to watch the Anxiously Engaged video. ruclips.net/video/D0hSAeBrR00/видео.html
You do have a logical problem in explaining why an all-knowing perfect God issues wrong revelations and seems to change his mind when church economy is threatened as was the case with allowing priesthood to black people. Same will probably happen to the church's ridiculous ban on homosexuality. Brigham Young's categorical condemning of blacks as the descendants of Kain and as such forever cursed, rings through the ages. I appreciate your energy and enthusiasm, sad to see it wasted on Mormonism.
This exact same conversation is going to be happening in about thirty years regarding the mormon church's treatment of homosexuals. The time will come when they are finally fully embraced by the church, including temple marriage and all. And there will be young BYU students of the day trying to explain away everything that the LDS Church has done over the past few decades and continues to do regarding the LGBT community. The LDS church has historically always come around but only after intense public and societal pressure forced it. It just happens about 30 to 50 years late. You know what would be really cool? If there was like a real living prophet who actually spoke with God and could progressively lead the way on such issues...
That would require such a God to exist, so we're shit out of luck. We'll just have to do it for our selves and drag the regressive religions along 50 years later.
Aztec Tactical *there’s never been an example of God endorsing same sex relations. It’s always been a sin. Being black is not the same thing as sexual intercourse preference. That’s something Lucifer teaches to confuse God’s children. It’s rank sophistry.*
But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
Wow, very dishonest. You should probably do more research before continuing to make fools of yourselves. It was doctrine, advocating anything to the contrary is just dishonest. Way to live up to the 13th Article of Faith, "We believe in being honest, true...." I guess that AOF needs a foot note... "Lying for the Lard is an exception." What is it like defending the indefensible?
My name is John Patrick Rakoto: You guys need to go way back to understand this. Ham was Noah's son He did something unspeakable and as a result all of his descendants from Aegyptus or all of Africa was cursed. When Jesus Christ in His wisdom thought it was time to lift it. He instructed Prophet Spencer W Kimball. Mock God to you're own peril.
I am now in the process of talking with Missionaries about the church. I was going to be baptized but after research I dont think I can join this church. This video has made my problems worse.
Run. Don't walk. Its a cult. Bad news is the Mormon church tracks its contacts. They will be following you for awhile, but not nearly as bad as if you got baptized. Google: Mormon Strengthening Membership Committee. Scary stuff.
What seems to be your problem? I admit I feel the subject deserves more respect than two college kids cracking jokes. The 'Middle' offers a more respectful discussion of some of these topics on this channel. The is also the "Be One" celebration that can be found on youtube, as well as testimonies from people like Marvin Perkins and Burgess Owens.
Perhaps this is helpful. Here is the statement read by President Hugh B. Brown in the October 1963 General Conference before he began his remarks (President David O. McKay had it published as an ‘official statement’ in March 1965 in the Deseret News): During recent months both in Salt Lake City and across the nation considerable interest has been expressed in the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed. We again say, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny to any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned that means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States. We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man. The First Presidency. and here is the most recent official policy statement from the Handbook of Instructions: 38.6.14 Prejudice All people are children of God. All are brothers and sisters who are part of His divine family (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”). God “hath made of one blood all nations” (Acts 17:26). “All are alike” unto Him (2 Nephi 26:33). Each person is “as precious in his sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21). Prejudice is not consistent with the revealed word of God. Favor or disfavor with God depends on devotion to Him and His commandments, not on the color of a person’s skin or other attributes. The Church calls on all people to abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice toward any group or individual. Members of the Church should lead out in promoting respect for all of God’s children. Members follow the Savior’s commandment to love others (see Matthew 22:35-39). They strive to be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting prejudice of any kind. This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation.
Brett is a Mormon apologist. His goal is to confuse the issue and defend the Mormon cult. Do your own research, and do not be fooled. As others have suggested, pull up the ces letter and have the missionaries address each point with you. You should also check out the video, 50 issues with the Mormon church, on RUclips. The videos creator will respond to all comments and requests for evidence and documentation.
This is just like how the apostles in our day are just men of their own times and we can acknowledge that their teachings on homosexuality are wrong. It's just their opinion, not doctrine.
The church said they received REVELATION in the temple that children of same sex parents can not be members or get baptized until they are 18 and disavow their parents lifestyle. This revelation was then repealed less then 3 years later in 2015 after huge backlash. Mormon revelation is funny.
So if the ban was implemented NOT by revelation, then why was revelation needed to lift the ban? That doesn't make sense? Why did it take 100+ years for God's prophets to finally get it right and remove the ban? Why would God allow it to go on for so many long?
I gotchu fam. Dark skin isn’t a bad thing. But think about it. Nephis descendants were fair skinned. So God chose a skin that was opposite to theirs. God needed a way to differentiate the good and the bad and skin color is something that is noticeable from hundreds of feet away. You can’t even recognize someone from that far away and the only thing you can tell about them is what color skin they have.
Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine... .... guys the devil is the father of all lies is he not in your opinion? Intentionally withholding information is tantamount to lying... Your either ignorant to our church history or lying.. We all know it was doctrine, policies come from doctrine. There would be no need for the 1970s revelation if not for the old doctrine and scripture to support its racist past doctrine. I believe your well meaning guys. I just wish you would present the whole truth and let people decide for themselves.
The first presidency specifically said its doctrine... 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. The First Presidency
@@brettmajeske3525 Mormon prophets before Mckay wrong? “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” - Pres. Wilford Woodruff
@@brettmajeske3525 In October 1960, Kimball discussed the Indian placement program at the General Conference. He said that Natives who participated in the program were gradually turning lighter, becoming 'white and delightsome. "The day of the Lamanites is nigh," Kimball said, claiming that Navajo placement students were "as light as Anglos" and, in one case, several shades lighter than parents "on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather."
Guys, the presidency of Brigham Young was a slippery time for the church. He openly preached that African descended people had the curse of Ham. He indicated the priesthood ban! I personally believe Brigham allowed his carnal opinions get to him and ultimately introduced false doctrine. Much like Aaron in the story of the golden calf, prophets have made mistakes when attempting to please the people. My point is don’t hide the truth. Admit we’ve made mistakes but have ultimately strived to stay the organization the Lord Jesus Christ created.
They read Bruce McConkie’s words admitting he personally was wrong on the matter. McConkie openly admitted his error-there was no pretending or making justifications about his incorrect judgment. Aaron and the golden calf is an excellent example of church leaders making mistakes. Perhaps we ought to cut them some slack when they make mistakes as even the prophet is not perfect.
Simply put, prophets and apostles are still humans who have made mistakes. Racism was just one that we unfortunately made. The important thing is to learn from those mistakes, which we surely have. Reading this comment section hurt, and I am sorry if you got hurt by the church. Another important thing to consider, is to not judge the church by one person who was being a jerk. I sincerely pray for you people. God bless ☺️
You mentioned that Brigham Young invited mixed race individuals to the community of mormons. I've never heard of that, only the parts where he was definitively against race mixing. Could you provide a reference?
It's very strange in this video that they use they phrase "death on the spot" because that is actually what Brigham Young taught. The fact that they said it probably means they know it and are covering it up.
@@cheryllee81 That was an actual US law at the time imposed by congress on the territory of Utah. Not a doctrine. When BY said that people would be killed, he wasn't talking about secret LDS enforcers, but the federal authorities.
@@cheryllee81 It was. Brett the Mormon apologist is lying for the lord. Do the research the record is clear. Just look at the actual words of Mormon prophets who claimed to be mouthpieces for God pre 1978.
"it's important to realize when a prophet says, 'This is doctrine', and when they're talking about things that are kind of racist, there is never in the point of history where they're like, 'This is doctrine'. " Brigham Young: "I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95). "I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161). "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom . . . I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95). "What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? The success which has attended me in my presidency is owing to the blessings and mercy of the Almighty . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 127). "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290). "In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172). "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." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
@@nocturnoculto9445 Brigham Young also said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood and of coming into the Kingdom of God and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity." Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, pp. 142-143 You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham. Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56 The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed. - Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS historical department; Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and tehn another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the 'servant of servants,' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291 Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin 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. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 272 I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing [sic] that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants.... Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons [sic] the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick [sic], and all the elders of Isreal [sic], suppose we summons them to apear [sic] here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be pertakers [sic] with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and the Kingdom of God leaves us to our fate. Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS archives
@@nocturnoculto9445 he also 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." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110). If we hold to what Brigham Young said as credible and as the actual words of God--Scripture--as he affirmed his words were, then we better be willing to hold to all his teachings, as well as that of the founders of the church.
Jface does stuff , I understand you and respect your opinion and what you believe but brigham young said some things that only brigham young understood, and if for his contemporaries it would be difficult for us more, and apparently brigham young said things that sound racist and others that sound the opposite We can judge him but it is not a very fair trial, because we did not meet him in person and we did not live in his time, he once said that the Africans would receive all the blessings and more, if you want watch this video, Be One - A Celebration of the Revelation on the Priesthood, first there is a speaker and then there is a presentation by African members.
Question for any and all nay-sayers on this piece of Church history: why do you believe prophets in the Bible can have prejudices (Jonah on Ninevah, Simon the Zealot on the Romans that had conquered Israel) or other human weaknesses (Peter denying the Savior thrice, David commiting adultery & murder yet still reviewing revelation from Heaven, Noah getting drunk and running around immodestly, Moses arrogantly asking the Hebrews why he must constantly perform miracles for them when it is God working through Moses, or James & John wanting to bring down the wrath of Heaven upon a city that didn't want to hear the teachings of Christ), but can't accept that modern prophets can also make mistakes? Every prophet who has ever lived, save Jesus alone, has needed to repent and has had human weaknesses. As to where you draw the line with what is doctrine and what is not, that's something every member must decide for themselves. Joseph Smith once said he had vowed never to vote for a Democrat, but I know several left-leaning Latter Day Saints. This was because he's gone to the U.S. President Martin Van Buren, a Democrat, looking for help for the Saints that were being viciously persecuted, and Van Burem's response was essentially "You're right, I should help, but I'll lose the vote in Missouri if I do, so no." And Lilburn Boggs, governor of Missouri and a Democrat, was the one responsible for the Extermination Act, which I dare any anti-mormon to justify such an evil and unconstitutional action. The Gospel in the New Testament wasn't taught to the Gentiles until after the Savior ascended into Heaven. Does that mean the Church was prejudiced against non-Jews and that it "changed it's mind"? No. God was waiting for the right time, and in His infinite wisdom, this was the right time to bring them the Gospel. I don't know why it took so long for the priesthood to be given to the black members of our Church, but I suggest you listen to their testimonies. In 2018, the Church had a world-wide celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Priesthood ban being lifted and many black members shared stories of their unwavering faith in the Gospel and their deep gratefulness for the lifting of the ban. Dallin H. Oaks shared the experience of when Pres. Kimball called him to tell of the revelation he'd received that told him the policy of the priesthood end was over. It was time for all worthy members to access the blessings of the priesthood. And Pres. Oaks wept for joy, along with his friends, family, and fellow members. When Joseph Smith ran for office, he ran as an abolitionist. One of the primary reasons the Church was hated and persecuted was due to us being strong advocates of ending slavery in America in the border state Missouri. And as Kwaku said, if you want to base black people not being part of a Church because there was bigotry to them in the past, then I expect you to go to every black members of any denomination and tell them they can't be Christian at all. They can't be American, go to college, be in the military, in the police force, part of Congress, in many countries, and it's a very narrow minded view of the world around you. Let other people make decisions for themselves! If they don't want to join us because of this piece of history, no one's forcing them to join, or stay if they want to leave. Show some decency towards those you disagree with and allow people to believe in what they want.
Huh, the SDA Church started in 1844, officially a church in 1863. One of our founders was the prophetess Ellen G White. And it is interesting that she never made racist statements and she advocated for abolition. So, all of Christianity was NOT racist by doctrine or personal beliefs.
I also find it disturbing how Mormons always seem to try to drag the Bible down with their own doctrinal issues. As if two wrongs make a right. Or we are bad but the Bible is too or it's worse. Except the examples are always faulty in their interpretation. I.e in this video the conflating of Gods judgement on Canaan is the same as Mormon racism in it's early days. Does that mean when Christ judges the world, He is going to be racist for doing so? Blasphemy! Because these judgements of God in history are set as an example for us, according to the Apostle Paul. I don't hate Mormons. I want them to see the truth. And because Mormons are practicing a false religion, I don't like the doctrine. It's the ideology, not the people. And it is a serious matter. God bless
"Those views aren't doctrine, they aren't true, and we don't have to look at them as if they're from God." But at the time they were doctrine and came from supposed prophets of God. You also cited racism from the pulpit as an evidence of apostasy _in a video about the LDS church doing the exact same thing._ How is it that when other churches did it it was a sign of apostasy, but when the Mormon church did it (for decades longer than the vast majority of other churches I might add), it's just a mistake by past leaders? That's especially hard to justify while also making the claim that those past leaders were prophets who received revelation directly from God.
@@savannawoods4376 Dont worry they will. Eventually society will force the mormon church to stop their homophobic and sexist teachings and they will come up with a new "revelation" abandon the old doctrine. Then the apologists will spin a narrative to try to preserve faith. No difference when the church stopped polygamy, teaching blood atonement, Adam god doctrine, and the racist rhetoric against people of color. We wont be fooled.
I was a believing member of the LDS church and attended Brigham Young University in Utah. It was during my time as a student there that I discovered Brigham Young's racist history and the horrific doctrine that he taught his congregants. This racist doctrine has direct ties with Book of Mormon verses referring to God's punishment taking the form of dark skin. I also discovered the 'September Six', real progressives who advocated for equal treatment and transparency and as a result were excommunicated. Make no mistake, the strict adherence to the dogmatic teachings of this hierarchical church and its leaders continues to create inequality within the religion. Blacks now have access to the priesthood, but women? No, they have a different social standing within your belief. It is not equal. The same can be said for gays who cannot live their lives openly and honestly within the church, which demands that they practice celibacy. I'm glad that I left the church back then and the name "Brigham Young" does not appear anywhere on my degree.
@@towardcivicliteracy Here is the first presidency statement on this topic from 1949. Do some research. 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. The First Presidency
Current member but with serious questions on the church the last 5 years. I don’t blame anyone for having serious questions on the church and huge inconsistencies or logical issues of doctrine and beliefs, and with the history 9f the church, but I have to say I always think it’s funny when people give the church grief for not allowing women into the priesthood, or changing church policy and commandments so that members can still be considered worthy and or temple worthy if they are practicing gay lifestyles or in a relationship sexually with someone of the same sex. I find this thinking asinine and contradictory, because it wouldn’t be the church if they suddenly started saying you cold have a relationship or get sealed to the same sex. Or if women could get priesthood. At that point if God allowed us to rewrite the church and scriptures how we want them, what would be the point at all to all of it? I am more than fine by the way if people want to get married and what not to people of the same sex or whatever and am all for equality so that people can be accepted and loved, but I’m just saying that to expect a religion to make these changes is absurd because it wouldn’t really be the church if they stopped only believing in marriage between a man and a women. It’s a religion, not a government.
I'm glad you found your place in life without something that you did not agree with. However, you should probably educate yourself a bit more in terms of what happened. The Book of Mormon (and the Bible BTW) make no reference to a skin colour being a curse or a "punishment". You, like many, fail to understand that the curse was the spiritual separation of God from those that chose to be disobedient (Cain, the Lamanites, etc.). That, was the curse (Genesis 4: 11-12). The skin colour was to protect Cain (read Genesis 4: 13-15) from being harmed and was in no way a curse to his descendants. The same curse and mark is used in the BOM. The skin colour is NOT a curse. If it were so, the Lamanites would not have been able to come back into the fold of God, which they clearly did throughout the history of the BOM. Without a doubt leaders of the LDS Church interpreted things in a time that was very different than today. Looking back to the 1800's from 2023 seems so easy, but it fails to account for the cultural norms of the time. The United States in and of itself was filled with racism with Christian denominations segregating their congregations. The LDS Church allowed blacks and anyone of any colour to be baptized. To indicate that these black members (as well as those that have joined the Church today) are somehow ignorant or have been deceived is really portraying them as incapable of making their own decision and to feel the spirit convey to them the truth of the restored gospel.
One thing I think gets left out of the conversation is that it was a priesthood AND TEMPLE ban. It wasn't just that black men weren't allowed to receive the priesthood, it was that black men and women weren't allowed to receive their temple ordinances. Sometimes we focus only on the priesthood part of it and forget that our sisters were also affected! Also, it should be noted that the ban had a ripple effect in black people's ability to serve in callings, speak in meetings, receive patriarchal blessings, and marry interracially. So glad that the horrible ban was ended and we are back on the right track!
You are not back on the right track. What are you talking about... Your doctorine wouldn't change like that and get off track and then come back if it was from God. That makes no sense.
The horrible ban? You mean your perfect God was incapable of letting his prophets know that black people should be allowed all the rights and privileges of Church membership for all those years? So, God is either impotent or racist. Or he doesn't exist at all.
@@amyv8416 Well God does exist...We can look at the molecular level and see that. just not the god of the Mormons...The God of Israel spoken of in the Bible is true.
@@SPECIALTRADER1 if he exists, then he's either weak and useless or he's a genocidal, misogynistic racist, which describes the God of the Bible perfectly. I'm not saying he absolutely does not exist. I'm saying that I do not believe he exists. Go ahead and prove he does exist at a molecular or any other level.
@@SPECIALTRADER1 There isn't a proclamation creating the ban. It was not doctrine as David O McKay openly stated. Men make mistakes, and then they repent.
Well after having watched Pres Nelson's Sunday morning conference address, there is another Prophetic quote to add to the list. President Nelson reiterated that God loves all of his children and emphasized that racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be tolerated. “I assure you that your standing before God is not determined by the color of your skin. Favor or disfavor with God is dependent upon your devotion to God and His commandments and not the color of your skin.”
"Since they believe in 'continuous revelation,' Mormons have a mechanism that enables them to reverse previous positions without repudiating the past.... That the church will invoke such a mechanism to resolve the racial issue is not too unlikely... this approach has a serious drawback. It is the tendency not to acknowledge the errors of the past. While revelation could be used to legitimate a new racial policy and to redefine Mormon relations with black people, Mormons might still be unwilling to condemn the racism involved in their history. They might be inclined to argue that Mormons in earlier periods were under a different mandate than the one binding them. This obviously implies that the church is never wrong. Thus, change may come through the notion of continuing revelation, but the racist aspects of Mormon history will not necessarily be condemned." The Journal of Religious Thought, Autumn-Winter 1973, pp. 57-58
@@carolhudson2965 Why do you feel that way? I though Pres Nelson was quite clear in denouncing racism. Last year he was invited to speak at the NACP conference in Detroit. How is denouncing racist behavior gaslighting?
@@brettmajeske3525 June 9, 2020 Wil Colom, special counsel to the NAACP president, said the group “hasn’t seen very much” progress on joint projects. The LDS Church has united with the historic black activists, to explore “ways to work together to improve self-reliance and upward mobility for inner-city and minority families.” Indeed, the two organizations have collaborated on a handful of employment and education initiatives. But those were “minor efforts,” Colom said. They “do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do and should do.” The NAACP is “looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church,” Colom said, and by their “endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws.” Derrick Johnson - the NAACP president and CEO, who signed the op-ed with Nelson and who met in Salt Lake City with the Latter-day Saint leader in May 2018 - said Monday that Colom was authorized to speak for the organization.
ACTUAL Mormon doctrine: "And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a *dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people* , full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Ne. 12:23)
@@towardcivicliteracy In October 1960, Kimball discussed the Indian placement program at the General Conference. He said that Natives who participated in the program were gradually turning lighter, becoming 'white and delightsome. "The day of the Lamanites is nigh," Kimball said, claiming that Navajo placement students were "as light as Anglos" and, in one case, several shades lighter than parents "on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather."
@@juneholley1813 I know we are discussing this on another thread, but thought it worthwhile that those reading this one gets the full context: "These Indian Elders are well-groomed, neat, smiling, and equal to their white companions...I have heard them bear their witness, saw then shed tears of joy, heard them express the affection for loved ones." "In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty are as light as Anglos; five are darker but just as delightsome." "Surely the number of deprived ones is being reduced, and opportunity is knocking on their door. Hundreds of Lamanites are serving in mission fields both in the Americas and the island of the sea. Lamanites are exercising their Priesthood and raising their families in righteousness. God bless the Lamanites and hasten their day of total emancipation from the thralldom of their yesterday. " So your quote about being "light as Angelos" is actually talking about a photograph of missionaries. Two groups, one with lighter skin, the other with darker skin, but both "...just as delightsome."
@@georgezeller6046 You do realize that in Biblical Hebrew, white and pure are the same word? Hebrew never uses to mean skin color. Check out the Book of Job. Marvin Perkins has done some wonderful scholarship on the subject.
Ian, now that you know that there was a time when the LDS "prophet" said the black ban was doctrine, even a "direct commandment of the Lord", how do you stand by what you said a 1:30-1:40 in the clip? It seems you had reconciled this because you thought no LDS prophet had ever said it was doctrine. Now that you know it had been so declared, why don't you man up and correct the misstatements, and explain how you can belong to such a racists facade the LDS faith?
You should look up David O McKay who after researching the historical documents decided that there was no Doctrine supporting the ban. He had believed that it must exist, but after looking, found that he couldn't find it. After his Presidency all the Prophets following him recognized it as a practice or policy and not Doctrine.
Brett the Apologist said sure Mormon prophets were a little racist. Sure they segregated people with african decent and claimed they were cursed with dark skin until 1978, but did you see that David O McKay said racism was wrong and one day the church would stop its bad behavior? (never mind that Mormons continued to segregate when McKay was prophet and in charge) See Mormons are not racist! /s
@@juneholley1813 While I respect that you have a different opinion, I do find your continued attempts to put words in my mouth to be both offensive and childish. You restatement of my position is ether the result of mental deficit or deliberate dishonesty. As you seem uninterested in a rational discussion about the actually difficulties and struggles as recorded by those that lived them, instead dismissing their opinions and humanity, I believe I will let you rant in peace. Please continue supporting Saints Unscripted. As the algorithm does not distinguish between positive and negative comments, your rants only help spread the Gospel message, and for that I thank you.
@@brettmajeske3525 Your claim that I am supporting Saints Unscripted by speaking out about their (your) disgusting defense of racism is laughable. RUclips has greatly contributed to the Mormon churches bleeding of membership as people wake up and realize just what type of church they are a part of. I stand for equality to all regardless of color. I stand for honesty and transparency. I will continue my missionary work exposing the mormon cult. You are a dishonest mormon apologist defending horrible behavior and no one is fooled.
Was just reading the updated Handbook of Instructions and came across this section: "38.6.14 Prejudice All people are children of God. All are brothers and sisters who are part of His divine family (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”). God “hath made of one blood all nations” (Acts 17:26). “All are alike” unto Him (2 Nephi 26:33). Each person is “as precious in his sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21). Prejudice is not consistent with the revealed word of God. Favor or disfavor with God depends on devotion to Him and His commandments, not on the color of a person’s skin or other attributes. The Church calls on all people to abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice toward any group or individual. Members of the Church should lead out in promoting respect for all of God’s children. Members follow the Savior’s commandment to love others (see Matthew 22:35-39). They strive to be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting prejudice of any kind. This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation." That is about as official as it gets.
Edit: My conversation seems one sided because the person I was interacting with choose to violate community guidelines. Please be respectful, I do not like one sided conversations. In our earlier conversation we talked about what was preached from the pulpit and official publications. I argued that recent statements are not that different to what was officially preached in the past, hear are some examples: May 2013, Gospel Topic Essays "In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.” The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Latter-day Saint congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community. The Church’s lay ministry also tends to facilitate integration: a black bishop may preside over a mostly white congregation; a Hispanic woman may be paired with an Asian woman to visit the homes of a racially diverse membership. Church members of different races and ethnicities regularly minister in one another’s homes and serve alongside one another as teachers, as youth leaders, and in myriad other assignments in their local congregations. Such practices make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a thoroughly integrated faith... During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”… 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… The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous-regardless of race-is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” Bruce R. McConkie 1978: There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles. "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
In 1972, Harold B. Lee said, "It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time." Joseph Fielding Smith-1970 “We know of no scripture, ancient or modern, that declares that at the time of the rebellion in heaven that one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral. ... That one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral and therefore were cursed by having a black skin, could hardly be true, for the negro race has not constituted one-third of the inhabitants of the earth.” Wilford Woodruff recorded the following in his journal: December 25, 1869: I attended the School of the Prophets. Many questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said no they were not. There were no neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides. He said if anyone said that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirits of the Blacks were neutral in heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary. All spirits are pure that come from the presence of God... But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam except the sons of perdition.
Isn't it interesting that the mormon god has such difficulty finding just ONE good man who can simply follow directions? Who can say, "You got it, boss! I will repeat your wishes word for word to your believers!" Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, just to name 2 prophets, were horrible people. There really weren't 2 honest men alive at the time that god could have chosen instead of those 2?
Nothing good can ever come from something based on a lie! Now that the cat's been let out of the bag, people are leaving the church in droves. I predict any new recruits in the future will be from poor countries with little to no Internet access. The problem for the church is, these people have no money for missions or tithes.
If Mormons aren't racist anymore (at least AFTER 1978 and the reversal of the priesthood and temple ordinance ban on blacks), why would Saints Unscripted REMOVE Kwaku El from all of the video thumbnails with him in it?!?! Not a good look, particularly with all of the current cast being white. Who decided to white-wash the thumbnails? Is it a matter of time before all of Kwaku El's videos are simply removed?!?!
the ban was lifted around the same time Barbra Walters interviewed the Donny and Marie Osmond on national TV. She went straight for the jugular: she said what's with this business of not ordaining blacks as clergy...soon after, the elders had a REVELATION tat all races could attain the clergy, or priest holder in the LDS...
I thought it was because their Tax Exempt status was being threatened by the government. They did not want to pat taxes so , suddenly, their “prophet “ at that time suddenly had a direct revelation from God that it was time to admit African Americans to their priesthood.
U would think God's people would have God's spirit of love, clean from irrational hatred. And u would think self respecting black people would not align themselves with racist and allow unclean spirited man to speak for God
@@bman3074 "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." Brigham Young, (March 8, 1863.) Journal of Discourses 10:110.
@@juneholley1813 Well that was US law. Not that there is any evidence that BY ever enforced it. In fact he known to be friends with a mixed race Elder of the Church.
The Blacks not being able to receive priesthood was doctrine until 1978. If LDS prophets are truly prophets of God, and the LDS church is the restored Church...perfect, then blacks having priesthood should have been doctrine AND policy from the start. It wasn't doctrine and policy back in the early church history because Brigham Young was racist and ignorant, and so were most of the prophets who followed. They weren't God inspired, they were pushing white men's prevalent ideas and sentiment at that time. LDS believe(d) that Blacks are black because they have the curse of Cain due to being indifferent in taking sides during the war in heaven. Blacks are black because they come from Africa, most of which is hot and sunny. Black skin protects against things like skin cancer in a very sunny place. Blacks being cursed and given black skin for being lazy in pre-existence is the explanation ignorant people of that time would give. Why was polygamy stopped? Because there was a convenient revelation to stop polygamy when Utah wanted statehood. Utah wasn't going to get statehood as long as polygamy was officially legal. What about the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Why would a loving God select a man like Brigham Young to be a prophet in His newly restored church that has the fullness of the gospel? Unfortunately, man often makes God in his own image and God speaks through men who claim to be prophets. The Bible teaches there would be no more prophets after Malachi until the Messianic Age. It amazes me how many young Mormons know so little about the early church, however if they do find out on the Internet, many lose their faith and leave. This is why so many are leaving in North America. It requires too many intellectual gymnastics to keep the faith in the Internet age. Those who stay often twist their minds into pretzels trying to justify what happened in the Church's past.
I was reading the “Race and the Priesthood” essay by the Church. What is interesting is that they never say the ban was wrong. All they say is that they disavow the reasons for it. And even then they dont deny the reasons previously given as being incorrect. To disavow means to not support. What the church is saying is that we don’t know why. It could be for the reasons that all the prophets and apostles were saying . But we don’t know. That does not refute the reasons we were given for so many decades. But let me be clear, I do not believe that any of the presidents of the church were racist. Period.
"I do not believe that any of the presidents of the church were racist. Period." How in the hell can you say this with a straight face? Mormon prophets are responsible for the segregation and racism that was preached as gods will and doctrine until 1978. Mormon prophets said and did horrible racist things for generations and generations. Its well documented. Your statement above is ridiculous.
And you are right. The Mormon church has never said their segregation and racist teachings were wrong. This is part of the problem. The Mormon church taught that black skin was a curse, and racist policies were doctrinal and gods will, and justified. Today they disavow these earlier doctrines that were taught as gods will for 129 years, but come up short of apologizing or recognizing their roll in perpetuating inequality. Its disgusting.
It is unfair that people want to make this church totally responsible for the racism that Africans lived through for almost 400 years of enslavement and persecution in the United States and they forget that the church did not persecute or murder Africans and that they could be baptized and be saved like anyone else.
@@nocturnoculto9445 The church is not "totally responsible" for the racism Africans lived through for 400 years. They are responsible for preaching racism and segregation as the will of god until 1978. Today the church disavows this earlier doctrine. The Mormon church is responsible for advocating against equality and pushing racist ideals as doctrine. For a church that claims they have a prophet that knows gods will and can not lead us astray... this is problematic.
Maybe this can help you understand. ; ) I'm a Black Mormon, Lets Talk About Racism ruclips.net/video/NEnPSDTYJ_s/видео.html A Black Guy Defends the Book of Mormon ruclips.net/video/5MJwnguO-I0/видео.html
@@krissander1 Ummm... i do not understand what the point of your comment is. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not, nor has it ever, taught that "men live in the sun". So.... why would such a claim need defending? Odd.
@@krissander1 With all due respect... i am sorry but that is simply not the way doctrine is established within the Church. Your point of view on the matter sounds like the sort of thing people say when they are more familiar with criticisms they find online than they are with how things actually work in the Church. Big difference! Here is a link to more information on the matter if your interested: www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Brigham_Young_actually_teach_that_the_sun_and_the_moon_were_inhabited%3F Again, there is no reason to "defend" a claim that makes no sense- even if it carries a lot of "shock-value" among internet trolls. : ) While there are criticisms of the Church that could be taken seriously the one you have presented here is simply not one of them.
Sorry, it's not hard to find multiple church articles discussing the curse on blacks as doctrine. You can also find quotes from multiple Church leaders referring to its policy as doctrine. In his letters to Lowry Nelson (and signed by the first presidency) it was clear that as president that George Albert Smith believe the church's exclusion of blacks for temple blessings was doctrinal. And then of course there is this quote from Dallin Oaks "I don't know that it's possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine" With that in mind, is the Church's current policies against LGBTs doctrine or opinion?
1949 First presidency statement on this issue: 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. The First Presidency
I'd never even heard of the Mormon church until I met a black American in Brazil who told me, I, he and every black on the entire planet were considered to be cursed by the Mormons. Hey, I'm not perfect, but I never once considered myself to be cursed. Sometimes, people really should just keep their religious opinions to themselves.
@@brettmajeske3525 I would argue, having been to Brazil and seen the ravages of literally 500 years of anti-black slavery on Brazilian society, a society that imported almost 6 million enslaved black men, women and even children - more than any other nation in the history of humanity - a society where anti-black racism still holds, a racism that afflicts all levels of society including the LDS. Further, there is no way the LDS can sell itself en mass if it wanted to, to black people given its deeply disturbing racist history. I think the ban on US blacks to move up the ranks of its organizational structure was only lifted when the US Federal government threatened to claim taxes from the LDS. Hardly, a change of moral attitudes, but certainly financial.
"From the days of the Prophet Joseph 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, July 17 1947. George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark Jr.
And in the 1950's David O McKay said that statement was wrong. He had assumed it must be doctrine, but after extensive research he could not find a revelation stating it so and concluded it was a practice based on tradition, and not a doctrine. Every following prophet agreed. GA Smith was also mistaken in that JS did ordain blacks. Even prophets can make mistakes when speaking of their own knowledge. Note that did not come from an official declaration.
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” - Pres. Wilford Woodruff, October 1890
@@georgezeller6046 Anxiously Engaged has an hour long video dealing with exactly that concern. I should point out that was a statement of Pres Woodruff's opinion rather than something sustained as doctrine. Still I largely agree with it, once one defines the "lead astray". Woodruff was talking about the end of the practice of plural marriage. He put forth new revelation, (now known as Declaration 1 in the D&C). This revelation, after having been sustained by the first presidency, the Q of the 12, and the 7 Presidents, but not the full Seventy was not being received well in certain parts of the Church. I do not believe that Woodruff's intent was to claim that every stray utterance to come out of his mouth was to be treated as scripture, nor that he was claiming to be perfect in all things. Rather he was talking about the claim of direct revelation, as sustained by the other general authorities. No such revelation for the priesthood restriction has ever been presented. The earliest statement that can be considered official is in 1949, at even that was in a private letter sent to a BYU professor. It was only signed by the First Presidency, not the Q of the 12, or 7 Pres of the 70. And then less than five years later, two of the three signers claimed that aspects of that letter were honest mistakes. They believed a revelation must have started the ban, but after years of investigation proved no record existed, realized they had been wrong in the matter and publicly said so.
@@georgezeller6046 Brett is a Mormon apologist. His job is to confuse the issue and shift blame off the Mormon church. Do your own research. Just look at what Mormon prophets and leaders had to say about people of african decent pre 1978. What did they say about Native Americans and their skin color changing from light to dark to light again? The evolution of Mormon theology is clear.
It was the American culture that shifted because of outspoken leaders against racism, like Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Fredrick Douglas, etc. The church did not lead the charge. I am fascinated and amused that when Gladys Knight converted, she took a kind of pride in helping Mormons sing with more feeling.
Mormonism is about loyalty to the cult first, not doing what is right. The church segregated until 1978, has never apologized, and continues to gas light the world about their involvement in pushing for racism. Ian is just being a good Mormon.
Not as many as you might think, and never in canon scripture. While it was the opinion of some that there was a doctrinal basis, including a former secretary to the First Presidency who said as much in personal letters, the first time a Prophet made an official statement, sent to the Stake, Wards, and news media, was David O McKay. He claimed it was a practice not a doctrine and that the Church did not know why the policy was implemented but assumed Heavenly Father knew. When one looks at the official declaration, proclamations, and other official statements of the Church, the issue is mostly ignored. For the most part when one finds explanatory statements, they are crouched in language like, "It is possible or likely that..." rather than definitive statements. And many quotes attributed to Prophets on the subject are either personal correspondence never intended for the public, or quotes taken from before the individuals calling. For example, Mormon Doctrine was published 12 years before Bruce R McConkie was ordained an Apostle. At the time it was written it was just the personal opinions of retired Military Intelligence interrogator. Indeed, after his call to the Apostleship, McConkie revised the book removing many of the more controversial content, including his previous opinions on race. Unfortunately, the revised edition never became as popular as the original.
My personal opinion on the matter is that the ban in 1850 was from God. They explanations for the ban might not have been. I don’t think Brigham Young was racist. I don’t think he was wrong to do what he did.
If you don't think Brigham Young was wrong to deny exaltation to a whole group of people, only because of their African decent, then you are morally corrupt and most likely a racist yourself.
@3 Mormons, With your failed logic of; }}"The views that they had that were racist are not doctrine. There not true. And we don't have to look at them as if they're from god."{{ They it is the same for Homosexuality.
Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. Brigham Young and John Taylor had some regrettable run-ins regarding black men and LDS women, so they decided that they wouldn’t ordain black men to the priesthood. There was no revelation given by the Lord to institute such a practice, but it continued through the 1970s. Shortly after the São Paulo Brazil Temple was announced in 1975, local church leaders pointed out to the Brethren that many local mixed-race members carry African blood and would therefore be exempt from the blessings of the temple that was being built for their benefit. Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his Counselors and the Apostles prayed in 1978 if they could ordain black men to the priesthood and the Lord responded in the affirmative. In fact, I heard an Apostle visiting my mission in 1981 say the Lord basically said, “I never said you couldn’t (ordain black men).” So why did the Lord allow such a practice for well over a century? Only the Lord can answer that, but I suspect it was to teach the Saints numerous lessons and try their faith. We could also ask why God allowed numerous dispensations to fall into apostasy, including the Dispensation of Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ was the Savior of the world, why did God allow him to be brutally tortured and murdered and make it appear that the Romans and Jewish hierarchy seemingly won the battle against the preacher from Galilee? Why were Joseph and Hyrum Smith allowed to be murdered in cold blood and make it appear that the Mormon-haters seemingly won the battle against the new prophet? Much faith among believers in Christ has been tested since Adam and Eve, and those who remain faithful are stronger and will receive the Kingdom of Heaven. Consider all the black people who joined the Church while the practice of withholding the priesthood and temple blessings from blacks was in place. What extraordinary faith was required by those black people to join the Church anyway! Yet their reward in Heaven is greater than we can ever imagine. Don't focus on the past. Look to the future with faith and confidence knowing that the steadfast followers of Christ will be bathed with blessings innumerable!
Forget everything Brigham Young has said about this matter... why not in ALL matters? Because the man was no prophet at all, and the whole Mormon doctrine is nothing but men made
I don't understand a few things about the LDS please help. If the leaders of the church are prophets of God, why would it take 100 years to lift the bWhy would they think or say something(black skin) that He created was a curse? Wouldn't someone who has a one on one relationship with God have known better?Also, does God speak English? By this I mean modern contemporary English or do prophets hear 15th century English when He speaks? I ask because LDS text aren't written in 19th century language even though that's when were translated?
In the Bible there was a long time when the race of the Levites we're the only ones allowed by God to have certain priesthood rights and be temple workers. This was not for unkind racist reasons against all other members and races of the church. (ONLY a thought.) God does not tell us ALL reasons for some things until after this life. He's not hiding something. He's always giving us line upon line a little at a time to grow. :-) Thank you for your research on official statements and actual Doctrines that come from the source!
This is the statement on this topic by the first presidency. Do some research Janalee. SMH. 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. The First Presidency
@@nocturnoculto9445 How is the hell does this statement undo over 120 years of racism and segregation practiced by the Mormon church? Only a cult member who drinks the koolaid could have your view point.
June Holley , Ma'am, with all due respect, what I mention is not to undo anything, it is to show that brigham young can sound racist at times and quite the opposite at other times.
you mean the prophets were wrong? that has put so much doubt in our leaders, the prophet and ther church.Theres no difinite grounding? Im not happy being a mormon and ive been a mormon for 47 years please respon!!!
I think the guys did a great job explaining that the church leaders are imperfect and that we should always keep in mind the difference between doctrine and opinions. The doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ were restored bit by bit including the truth about black people; specifically that they are equal. At the time of the restoration of the church, very few people in the US knew that all races are equal in the eyes of God. we should be grateful that the church was taught that truth and embraced it.
okay, ive seen alot of things in the church. To give an excuse to say that was just an opinion and not doctrine comes to late, for some. Many have been born in the church, many converted on prophets messages and to question his wisdom if it is opinion or not is shakey.Im not racist, i love all people being a member, but this aspect is very important and be cleared properly because it involves history and many millions of lives. Thanks for responding P.S Can't wait to see next episode.
@@reckless3589 Doctrine is always confirmed by the full body of Apostles. Scripture, Official Proclamations, Official Instructional materials (Sunday School and Missionary), Conference Talks, these are clear sources of doctrine. Independently published books, and BYU lectures (while often uplifting) are not.
@@reckless3589 Brett is a Mormon apologist. His job is to confuse the issue and shift blame off the Mormon church. Do your own research. Just look at what Mormon prophets and leaders had to say pre 1978. The evolution of theology is clear.
On 17 July 1947, the LDS First Presidency wrote to Lowry Nelson, Mormon professor at Utah State Agricultural College regarding the status of Blacks in the Church: "Dear Brother Nelson: ". . . The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assinged to superior positions before the world was formed. "We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. 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 doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore. From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is 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. "Furthermore, 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 partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, 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. "Faithfully yours, George Albert SmithJ. Reuben Clark, Jr.David O. McKay" Lowry responded on 8 October: "The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist." The First Presidency answered: "We feel very sure that you are aware of the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning. "You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God."
That bowl is way too small for the goldfish. They need a large, heated, amd aerated tank. Of course, this was a year ago, so it's probably dead already.
What's wrong with this picture.. Oooohhhhhhhh you guys forgot to put credits! 'Brought to you by the LDS Church. You know us as, The Mormons.' That's kinda naughty of them to pretend to be just two young guys. Tho. Generally RUclips isn't run that way. Cuz it's generally genuine, not a mind control move by a billion dollar church doing damage control. I guess they couldn't just be up front about it tho and say they paid for this whole thing because, ya know, that'd just be creepy.
Fabled Creature Thank you for your concern and for teaching us about how RUclips is run. :) The LDS Church has absolutely no say in what we do with this show.
@@SaintsUnscripted Why are you guys avoiding responding to the comments? In the pinned post you say you will respond. There are many very important questions for you to clarify. Avoiding these responses says volumes about your integrity and your church. Mormonism can not survive a critical analysis, so you hide.
@@brettmajeske3525 They are intentionally avoiding the topic. They are active on RUclips and get the notifications. Their silence is intentional. Read their pinned post on this video where they claim they will respond... then see how they have ducked and dodged.
When we learn about history we ALWAYS need to remember that history was made by imperfect men, and women who were ALL in need of a savior. None of us lived then, we do not know what it was like, and we never will. Just as their culture in the past unknowingly, and knowingly, excused, or promoted terrible acts that hurt people we cannot deny that we are involved in a modern culture that accepts, and promotes bad things that hurt people as well, some of it we are conscious about, and others we are not. It’s easy to finger wag because hindsight is 2020. Accept the fact that if you were a German in the 1930s under Hitlers Germany you would likely be on par with the beliefs of the German people at that time. Whenever we imagine ourselves in past discrimination we always imagine we’d be the hero. Guess what? Heros were few and far between, because at times there were consequences to speaking out, or standing up (socially and legally sometimes even physically). If you were a regular saint in the time of the early church, or just a regular person at the time of slavery, you’d likely have kept your head down if you disagreed with the practice, or you would have participated or excused it. Hero’s were rare, and now because of those hero’s, and cultural changes due to the fact that as a people we strive to do and be better we are far away from what we were in the past. You have the potential to be just as bad, as those who lived before you. Humble yourself, read the BOM, and then pray about it. Don’t feed the Anti-Mormon trolls. That is all 😊
Hey 3 Mormons Family!
This topic is extremely multi-faceted. There's no way we could touch on every point of policy, criticism, and questions on the topic in an 11-minute video. We wish we could, honestly. It's such an important conversation to be had.
So ask away. We are always down to have a discussion.
Loves,
ian
Hey, Ian, if a Mormon in 1949 could not rely on the Prophet for labeling something a 'direct commandment from the Lord', how can Mormons in 2017 rely on what the Prophet says? Isn't there supposed to be an unbroken chain of authority leading back to and originating with Jesus? These are the facets that I think you ought to address in a follow-up video.
Also, Jane Manning James wanted to be sealed in the temple. She was sealed to Joseph as a servant.
"James continued to ask that she and her family be given the ordinance of adoption so that they could be sealed together forever. Her justification for asking to be the exception to the church's rule was Emma Smith's offer in 1844 to have her sealed to the Smith family as a child. James was now reconsidering her decision, and asked to be sealed to the Smiths. Her requests were again refused. Instead, the First Presidency "decided she might be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done, a special ceremony having been prepared for the purpose." The ceremony took place on May 18, 1894, with Joseph F. Smith acting as proxy for Joseph Smith, and Bathsheba W. Smith acting as proxy for James (who was not allowed into the temple for the ordinance). In the ceremony, James was "attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Joseph Smith and in this capacity be connected with his family and be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor"" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Manning_James
The letter guts the entire 3mormons video.
Will 3mormons do a follow up and explain the letters from the First Presidency to Stuart and Lowry?
This an utter and complete distortion of what the LDS faith leaders practiced for 100+ years. It is breathtakingly inaccurate.
*Black Men and The Priesthood:* “Several Africans who had received the gospel message waited with great faith for many years until the Church came to their countries. One such pioneer was Joseph William Billy Johnson of Cape Coast, Ghana. ‘As a young man, I started searching for spiritual peace,’ says Joseph Johnson of his early religious searching in Ghana.
“‘It was my prayer that the Lord should show me which church to join.’ Then in 1964 he met a man who had literature from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ‘I read the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and I believed that testimony. I believed it was a great message for the whole world. So I read the Book of Mormon and found it to be true-the true word of God.’
“Then one morning about 5:30 A.M., Joseph Johnson had a sacred experience. ‘While about to prepare for my daily work,’ he says, ‘I heard my name mentioned thrice: ‘Johnson, Johnson, Johnson. If you will take up my work as I will command you, I will bless you and bless your land.’ Trembling and in tears, I replied, ‘Lord, with thy help I will do whatsoever you will command me.’ From that day onward, I was constrained by that Spirit to go from street to street and door to door. … I did exactly as the Lord commanded me. I couldn’t help it, I had to share the message.’
*Tireless Missionary*
“Even though he was not baptized until 1978, Brother Johnson started gathering people. ‘The Lord knew we had no missionaries around to help us, so He directed us by the Spirit,’ says Brother Johnson, who continued proselyting and teaching the gospel in an untiring and zealous manner, though he had not yet been baptized and held no priesthood authority.
“During this time, Brother Johnson experienced opposition from those who didn’t believe that the Book of Mormon or any other book could be equal to the Bible. Some shouted accusations that Johnson was anti-Christ, and others distributed literature attacking the Church. A local newspaper even printed pictures of the Presidents of the Church and wrote degrading statements about each one.
“But as opposition increased, so did Brother Johnson’s determination to teach the gospel message. People began to listen and believe. His faith increased, and he felt the Lord blessing him in his work. One day, after some members of a crowd to whom he was preaching ‘hooted’ at him, about 40 people came forward and said they wanted to listen to the message. Their names were recorded and a meeting place was arranged.
“By April 1964, Joseph Johnson had formally organized a church patterned after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. He wrote to President David O. McKay and received additional literature and letters encouraging him to study the gospel and to help the people until, as President McKay wrote, ‘in the Lord’s own due time, missionaries would be sent.’
“Brother Johnson organized congregations, selected and trained leaders, and continued a vigorous proselyting program. Of his missionary labors, he said: ‘I used to walk 50 miles a day and wasn’t bothered about it. Whenever I walked, I reflected on the early missionaries, and I gained strength because it seemed as if I was following in the footsteps of the pioneers. Their example inspired me-the way some died in the snow and the way they toiled to bring the truth. They were great people.’
“With the growth came struggles. Once, while facing a serious problem, Brother Johnson fasted for three days. He then knelt and prayed for help. That night he dreamed he saw the Prophet Joseph Smith and President Brigham Young. They assured him that missionaries would come soon and that he should keep studying the scriptures.
“As a result of this manifestation, Brother Johnson developed a great love and appreciation for those two early prophets. He even chose to name his son Brigham-likely the only young man at that time in all of Ghana with that name.
“By 1968 Joseph Johnson had built up four congregations, so he quit his job and took up ‘a full-time missionary work.’ He farmed to support his family and lived off his retirement pension and donations from his followers. But the struggles proved to be too difficult for his wife, and she left him and the children. The divorce caused him great anguish. While struggling with his pain, he saw in a dream his only brother, who had died seven years before.
“‘My brother asked me why I was weeping,’ Brother Johnson says of the experience. ‘I said, ‘My wife has left me.’ My brother said: ‘Don’t worry. You have chosen the right thing, the true church.’ He said he would sing a song from my Church, and he sang ‘Come, Come, Ye Saints.’ That was the first time I had heard that hymn. He said: ‘Don’t leave the Church, my brother. Don’t leave the Church! Please see that I am baptized.’
“‘It was my brother who enlightened me about baptism for the dead and brought it to my knowledge. At times I still weep because I imagine thousands of people behind the veil who are expecting baptism. I learned these doctrines before the missionaries arrived, so when they taught us it didn’t seem strange. The missionaries simply confirmed what we knew.’”
*(Continued in Part 2)*
Brigham Young didn't advocate for mixed raced people - and the LDS church did have segregated congregations - mostly based on languages. I'm sorry, you're information is misguided. Brigham Young wasn't a "little" bit racist. Young also claimed that those who mixed with the seed of Cain, African Americans, would be damned. Please don't try to minimalize his bigotry. And I haven't even mentioned his misogynistic practices.
And, if the LDS church is the BEST church for Black people, then why has the church NEVER had a member of the qaurom of twelve who's Black, Hispanic, Asian, or any other race - other than White males?
You guys are clearly good guys - and unfortunately completely mislead - not by the information you have - but rather by the information you don't have.
BTW, the church has never officially defined the difference of policy and doctrine. Because in the end, what difference does it make?
You are spot on my friend , I'm Indian who live in the Caribbean , been a member of the LDS church for eleven years now and I never saw the racism in the Church until I myself was a victim of it . The Church teaches a doctrine of foreordination that classifies races on obedience, skin color , blessings ( includes wealth of a nation ) , which is mostly taught in the temple . Anything discussed , taught or acted out in the LDS temples are regarded as too sacred to reveal and members are under oath and covenant not to reveal them to anyone who hasn't gone to the temple because those people have not been " Prepared to receive ". In my country racial mixing is prevalent , Indians are regarded as black also , because the LDS church has classed us as such because of mixing and blessings that we presumably don't have. I only began understanding these things when I began dating a white woman, the missionaries specifically tried to teach me doctrines why I should not marry her . The LDS church is rooted in Freemasonry and racism and no matter what these clowns say that will never change
I wonder if they'll respond to this. Probably not.
girlhead4477 They probably will ignore my comment like it was never made . Imagine two elder missionaries came to my house to specifically tell me that " Brother Ganess you made a choice in the Pre-mortal existence to build up the church in this part of the world and if you marry that woman ( who happen to be American ) you have to bring her here". What blatant racism towards me whose calling was Ward Secretary at the time! It is the racist policy of the church that had me research , because I knew other members who were persecuted for dating out of their race , secondly I knew the elders did not act on their own that day and were carrying out a policy of the church. Boyd K. Packer gave a talk titled " Follow The Rule" which he vehemently counseled the BYU students to stick to marrying people of your own race .
Thank you for taking the time to refute this video. It’s honestly sad how this young black Mormon has to do mental gymnastics to harmonize what he knows is true about God’s view of races and the teachings of Joseph.
Bullcrap. We did not have segregated congregations, and our quorum of the 12 has an asian guy in it. Throughout most of church history most of the members were white, and blacks could not have the priesthood which is why our quorums were mostly all white, and after the ban was lifted most of our members were still white. However, now that we have more people from other ethnicities joining the church we have general authorities from other ethnicities so it's only a matter of time before some of them become apostles.
So, if Brigham Young was, according to your own words, "a little bit racist," and yet none of his contemporaries could see that, what kind of prejudices do current prophets possibly have that rank & file Mormons don't currently see, but which are also just as wrong as racism?
Kinda like when the Mormon church claimed they had revelation that children of LGBTQ parents could not be baptized until they were 18 and disavow their parents lifestyle. But after huge public push back, bad press, and mass resignations, the Mormon god changed his mind less then 3 years later and reversed the revelation. Mormon revelation is amazing, it seems to follow the money.
Some of the apostles were a “little bit racist” as well. They didn’t want to teach the Gospel to gentile or those who were non Jewish. Remember we’re sculpted by the environment around us, and Brigham Young’s time was of a white superiority time. The Apostle’s time was of ethnic and religious clashing between the Jews, Romans, and Gentile.
@@randonymous2793 But what about after 1964? Why did your church continue to segregate after the civil rights act was passed in the USA? Why did your church fight against the civil rights movement and continue their hate campaign after society had already accepted change?
@@juneholley1813 I don’t think it’s that, that’s not really doctrine it’s administrative policy, controlled by the prophets personal opinions direct revelation from God. So the prophet, seeing how people react so negatively to this policy could change his mind because that would bring more people to the church
@@juneholley1813 our church never fought against civil rights, we definitely had racist members, and that’s one thing I dislike about our church, our culture gets in the way of our doctrine. Also I guarantee there probably weren’t even 1000 lds clan members
You guys should be in the Olympics considering the level of Mental Gymnastics I see in this video.
@@towardcivicliteracy Its a knock. Mormons must be able to twist and bend the narrative that is always changing to preserve faith, its comical. Granted most mormons don't know the churches real history, but that is changing. This is why the Mormon church is loosing so many members. If you know the history and the evolution of theology and still believe you are a special kind of stupid.
@@coffeedrinkingisnotasin6049 Exactly. And these people can vote, have children and own firearms... Its just so disappointing.
@@towardcivicliteracy If you're a mormon, its evident you don't appreciate honesty.
"Hey we have a black guy hosting a discussion about blacks and the priesthood, but let's change the thumbnail for just the white guy to be on it, and use whatever google image we can find because we HAVE to remove Kwaku"
I Just love how they only calls black people to this channel when its about race
I cringe every time he says "blacks" and "a little racist".
@b jam Mormonism is racism. Its so sad to see someone with African decent defending segregation in the Mormon church that continued until 1978. Brainwashing on full display.
Why? I a African American and I say White's 😊
@@georgezeller6046 he’s not defending segregation. In fact he’s acknowledging it and saying that that is not a belief we have today, and that pretty much the entire world was racist at that point. He also says that they were one of the most progressive parties and held church meetings without segregation. Did you even watch the video?
@@yaboivids-parkourpranksmor5491 nothing holy about a "religion" that updates its "Bible" because it was racist without acknowledging that it was racist.
@Carlos Morales but, unlike other Christian denominations, racism is a part of their doctrine, its literally in their "Bible" & was supported by their "prophets." By admiting & renouncing racism they acknowledge that their "religion" is a lie & has always been nothing more than a racist cult. There is absolutely nothing holy about the LDS "church". For their religion to have any credibility they'd have to follow their racist doctrines. & embrace ideas like "the curse of cain" & "spill the blood of interracial couples," even while *burning* at the stake...
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."
(Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
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.
The First Presidency
@@rustynelson2357 The record is clear. Mormonism is racism.
Nicely put out of context my man.
@@chrisblanc663
Feel free to provide the "context" you feel is missing... Or just continue to bury your head in the sand and make weak excuses and then run away from actually backing up those excuses with any sort of rational argument.
You don't get simultaneously claim that the church is immune from the men it appoints as "prophets" being able to lead the church into false doctrine, and then retroactively claim that any time false doctrine was part of the church, it was just the fact that they were "acting as men" when they led the church into adopting that false doctrine.
Gotta pick one. Either the words of your "prophets" are infallible, and the same as scripture, just as valid as if God himself had turned up to say it himself; or they're just a bunch of clueless con men who are making this stuff up as they go along while they pretend it's all coming directly through them from God himself.
Pick one.
Wow! Talking about brainwashing.
How so?
ok ... but you're lying. Lying or severely misinformed on history and verifiable facts. you're also gaslighting.
So it's ok not to listen to what the prophet says ?
Yep. Pretty sure that's what they were saying. Except when they were saying the exact opposite...
dafuq
frame 9:40 Bruce R Mcconkie said in regardingnyesteryears prophecies, " We spoke with limited understanding..." Actually they spoke as prophets, and clear understanding.
@@jumpropestairs6129, I laughed so hard that milk came out of my nose..... and I'm not even drinking milk.
yep, we have laws man made that do their best to fit with society, we never needed a god, never will need a god.
Either they are ignorant of church history or they are gas lighting. I would expect more form a prophet that talks directly to god. Why didn't God send an angel with a flaming sword to stop racism in the church? God sent an angel with a flaming sword for rather disgusting reasons.Why did I attend seminary decades ago? The doctrine and things I was taught have changed.
Their lies are intentional. They know what they are doing. Disgusting.
@@gretasalazar2935 The bible is demonstratively fiction. Dont try to use one delusional fable to explain the rational of another. Religion is used for financial gain and control. Some religions are worse then others but all are equally false.
Andrew Steadman exactly. Like Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives. Like, David did that in the bible AND GOD PUNISHED HIM FOR IT. But God didn't punish Joseph Smith? It makes no sense.
@@prayerwarrior7778 how do you know God didn’t punish Joseph Smith? He was murdered.
@@johnlewis6526 Maybe god punished him for grooming children, marrying girls as young as 14 and other married mens wives, and lying about these relationships to his only legal wife Emma, church members, and the authorities.
“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
This comment section restored my faith in truth seeking and critical thinking.
surprised they haven't censored comments in true Mormon fashion.
@@rustynelson2357 Those would be the Jehovah witnesses.
@@The_Other_Ghost or muslims
@@vroomvrommgrrr6950 To be fair to rusty the Mormons haven't always been the most open minded, and Muslims can definitely be open to philosophy.
@@The_Other_Ghost Jehovah Witnesses, Scientologists, Mormons. Same game different name.
I was LDS and was told by white a member in 2000 that I was cursed. I have not been back since
They were wrong. Kimball, Hinkley, Monson, and Nelson have made that quite clear that those erroneous beliefs have no place in the gospel of Christ, doesn't stop some idiots though.
In October 1960, Kimball discussed the Indian placement program at the General Conference. He said that Natives who participated in the program were gradually turning lighter, becoming 'white and delightsome. "The day of the Lamanites is nigh," Kimball said, claiming that Navajo placement students were "as light as Anglos" and, in one case, several shades lighter than parents "on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather."
Friday OCT 7, 1960-Spencer W Kimball
"These Indian Elders are well-groomed, neat, smiling, and equal to their white companions...I have heard them bear their witness, saw then shed tears of joy, heard them express the affection for loved ones."
"In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty are as light as Anglos; five are darker but just as delightsome."
"Surely the number of deprived ones is being reduced, and opportunity is knocking on their door. Hundreds of Lamanites are serving in mission fields both in the Americas and the island of the sea. Lamanites are exercising their Priesthood and raising their families in righteousness. God bless the Lamanites and hasten their day of total emancipation from the thralldom of their yesterday.
"
So your quote about being "light as Angelos" is actually talking about a photograph of missionaries. Two groups, one with lighter skin, the other with darker skin, but both "...just as delightsome."
@@brettmajeske3525 You are a disgusting apologist. Stop trying to confuse the issue. Your church was wrong. They lead us astray. The Mormon church sleeps in the bed they made.
@@juneholley1813 how is he confusing anybody when he actually quoted something unlike everyone else who is just saying random things. Anything can be taken out of context.
You are both lying for the lord. My father was given clear instructions not to proselytize black Brazilians throughout his mission in Brazil back in the late '60s.
Drunken Reaper well said, and it was always official Mormon doctrine, official presidency statement confirming Brigham Young’s teachings, I think the year was 1949
@Drunken Reaper. That’s odd since Brazilians aren’t from Africa so he should have been able to teach them.
@@coultergill7728 they may not be from africa, but show a 20th century Mormon someone of color and bam, "no priesthood" "not worthy" or lesser than. this religion is on it's last legs, the old english conjecture, wicked and vile statements made from so called "prophets" and their "revelations" that have failed for nearly two century's are finally coming to light and people are abandoning this pagan fictitious masquerade for Christ. THE real Christ that created all, not the one that was "created" with Satan as his brother..oh mormon theology how you disgust the mind, and how the mind vomit's when it hears your so called "logic"
Was he just playing where's Waldo with white people the whole time? Sounds tricky lol. This video was so cringey and saddening to watch
@@coultergill7728 Black Brazilians are of African origin. Brigham Young said no one of *African descent* is to touch the priesthood.
In1954, in a sermon to BYU students Apostle Mark E Peterson said "If a Negro is faithful all his days he can enter the Celestial Kingdom. *He will go there as a servant*..
ruclips.net/video/2c6gY7QfT8k/видео.html
Cheryl Lee Thank you.
k o Looks that way.
2326038 Sad. Appreciate this quote. LDS people of color need to do their research. Don’t sell out to the justifications of the current leadership.
Which was his personal opinion and never official doctrine. What do the scriptures say? Official Declarations and Proclamations?
I do not defend the personal opinions of Peterson. I believe to be utterly wrong. Intend other Prophets and Apostles have openly disagreed with his views, including David O McKay, Hugh B Brown, Spencer W Kimball, Gordon B Hinkley, Thomas Monson, and of course the Apostle who replaced him in the 12 and current Prophet Russel M Nelson.
Again I am not defending Racism, nor am I defending racist beliefs of past members. New revelation was received, old beliefs were disavowed.
“You see some classes of the human family … are black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses)
Charming. Glad that church moved on but they are trying to make light of it.
Geez Louise I'm a black man and this makes me look at my own dad skeptical 🤣🤣🤣
These are the things that leaders of all churches thought during that time!
@@jay6562 I thought your religion was special... I didn't know it had the same flaws as the other ones (denomination) it claimed were flawed.
Saying it wasn't doctrine is just plain false. Just do a little research and you will find several examples
@@towardcivicliteracyI believe the "It" he's referring to is the priesthood ban and the racism found in the BOM and the POGP, and yes to the guy who's asking the question , it is doctrine. The entire church ( all the General Authorities) during the time of the priesthood ban expressed the same sentiments on why blacks were inferior by virtue of their non valiancy in the Premortal Existence's war in heaven against Satan and his followers , Moses 7:22 , And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam, and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
Abraham 1:24-26. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land . 25; Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. 26; Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his Kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father , who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood.
So we see direct reference being made to a Priesthood cursing through the lineage of Ham the son of Noah , who the Church believe is the lineage of the African people that's why past General Authorities taught that blacks could never hold the priesthood in this life.
@@katog Actually they often had mutually exclusive different rationalities. Some used the Ham theory, others rejected it for the pre-existence theory, and others had still other theories. When David O McKay asked the Apostles of his time (1950's) there were four different understandings. He then proclaimed it was tradition and not doctrine.
@@brettmajeske3525 I did quote scripture to support my claim, from what you are saying , does that mean that the scriptures aforementioned are misinterpreted? Saying those were tradition my President McKay is too vague to explain away what even Prophets of the LDS church taught , take brother Brigham for example. In Christianity, you are either led by divine revelation or not , in Mormonism, you either belong to the Church of the lamb of God or the Great and abominable Church of the Devil . There is no Luke warm in the gospel, in light of that being said , rhetorically speaking , how many LDS Prophets contradicted each other? These inconsistencies is clear conviction that the Mormon Church is NOT led by revelation and has since adopted a stance that the prophets only teach basic doctrine and refrain from expunging on "new" revelation.
@@katog “...does that mean that the scriptures aforementioned are misinterpreted?”
Yes. As Talmage pointed out in the early 1900’s, it is a leap to extend a scripture about a specific family line to an entire ethnic group. Especially as that scripture was from an Old Testament time frame. He noted that as the Aaronic Priesthood was limited to specific family lines before the coming of Christ, but is now available to all, using the passage in the Book of Abraham to apply modernly is counter to the teachings of the Book of Mormon and D&C. Interestingly enough, BY didn’t use the Book of Abraham as justification, and by the 1940’s it was the minority view among Church Leadership.
Specifically Pharaoh is claiming the right to the priesthood because his mother is a daughter of Ham, at a time it could only pass through the male line.
It should be noted that few (if any) Prophets quoted the BoA when speaking on the matter. Most of the sermons I’ve found using this approach were from the Quorum of the Seventies.
The lack of valor theory, which many thought was mutually exclusive with the Ham theory, became more popular in the twentieth century. It avoids the whole respecter of persons issues. But again it wasn’t as universally taught as you present. Specifically both Brigham Young and John Taylor denied it way back in the beginning of the Ban. It seemed to be a theory espoused by Orson Pratt.
Again there are very few statements from Prophets directly supporting that theory. Most official statements in the 1900’s say something about it being instituted by God for unknown reasons.
Indeed when McKay asked a Apostolic committee to investigate the origins of the ban after the death of George Albert Smith, the Twelve could not come to a consensus whether the supporting doctrine was lineage, valor, or unknown. No record of a revelation instituting the ban could be found, and evidence that blacks had been ordained when JS was prophet was discovered. Something that most of the Apostles of the time seemed to be unaware of.
That is when McKay started insisting on using ‘policy’, ‘practice’, or ‘tradition’ when talking about the ban. He felt that it was so persuasive that it would require a Revelation to change. There were at least three attempts between 1950 and 1978 to change it as a matter of policy, the last two times failing by a single vote.
“In Christianity, you are either led by divine revelation or not…”
Well the Curse of Cain was a common belief taught by most American Protestants of the time period. Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, and others would not ordain Blacks either. Free slaves had to start their own version of the Baptists faith because white congregations would not even allow them to be baptized. BY and the Prophets who followed him never claimed Revelatory doctrine when explaining the ban. They either relied on ‘common knowledge’ of beliefs they had been taught before joining the LDS Church; or extrapolated theories; or said it must be of God, but didn’t know why.
“...how many LDS Prophets contradict each other?”
Well that depends on context. They certainly have had differing opinions on different subjects. They are human after all. It is an unprofitable servant that must be commanded in all things. So the claim has never been that every stray utterance is scripture.
As far as the priesthood ban, different Prophets have had different opinions on why it existed, but actual implementation was consistent. It was never about skin color, but genealogy. South Pacific (including Maori), Native American, and other dark skinned ethnic groups were always permitted the priesthood. In Brazil, where it was not easy to tell who was descended from Africa or not, that standard was to error on the side of ordaining. George Albert Smith, who was one of the most conservative Prophets said it was better to give the Priesthood to someone who did not qualify, than restrict it from someone who did.
Even when they disagreed on why, every Prophet always stated that Blacks would receive the Priesthood someday, all the way back to BY. Many thought it would not happen in their lifetimes, but they all preached it would happen.
@@brettmajeske3525 I like your analysis and the support you provided to validate your claims , although I might not agree fully. Are you aware of Boyd K. Packer's talk titled "Follow the rule" which he gave in 1977 before students attending BYU? If your thesis is correct, then why was separatist doctrine still being taught in the form of this talk, especially concerning interracial marriage? Why are missionaries still being taught in Mtcs and by their respective mission presidencies all over the world to discourage interracial dating? If you are not familiar with that talk , it can still be found on Intellectual Reserve Inc. , which you should know is an official LDS subsidiary that is responsible for all Church publications.
This is one of the most painfully ridiculous, apologetic pro-mormon videos on the internet.... and that says a lot. If anyone ever needs an example of stirring something bad, just to end up making it worse, this video is it.
yep. And it gets worse when you read the comments and see all the Mormons defend their cult and this behavior. So this isn't just a couple rouge Mormons who made a crazy video. Racism is Mormonism.
@@carolhudson2965 So what about the current state of the LDS Church? or is only what happened before 78 important?
@@brettmajeske3525 Please show us your churches apology for what they did and said pre 1978. All I see is justification and gas lighting. I will wait.
@@brettmajeske3525 still no apology in 2021
@@juneholley1813 I would like to see America apologizing to the church for persecuting, for breaking promises and for making our members to suffer so much and for so long.
See, there’s always something we can claim in our sides, but as we can see, nobody is dying, crying or demanding anything from the government bc the Country did never apologize for what they have done in the past.
The past is not in our hands, that’s why it’s important to judge wisely and learn from it.
"Brigham Young was a little bit racist."
Actual Brigham Young: "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."
Was an actual U.S. law at that time.
@@brettmajeske3525 Was a supposed prophet anointed by God to forward his creation along. This view leaves God completely fine skipping over generations of race relations until the mass majority of non-religious folk changed their minds. That’s not inspiration, that’s following norms. Mormonism should have led society out of their racism. Not held on to racist priesthood rules until society had already changed their minds to a large degree.
@@saketeas2060 That is certainly one opinion. Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff all chose to accommodate, at least in public, federal racial laws hoping such a policy would reduce antagonism to Plural Marriage. Interestingly though is the fact that in spite of public endorsements, they never actually enforced them. Mixed race marriages continued in Utah with no public arrests until after the anti-polygamy laws forced the LDS leadership into hiding.
They were fighting a war on many fronts, and thought continuing to publicly call for equality like they did in Missouri would result in even more harassment from the Federal Government. There is a you tube channel call Anxiously Engaged that goes into the history in greater detail in the video entitled, "Are Mormons Racists?".
I am not claiming that Young made the right decisions, the fact that the Church officially has disavowed many of his attributed public statements makes that clear. Just that the topic is more complicated than simple racism, certainly given the conflicting statements attributed to the man.
@@brettmajeske3525 But the man doesn’t matter. The God is what matters. So I’m asking if God utilized a prophet to reform certain things (abstaining from coffee) but chose to allow, and encourage (by ways of priesthood restrictions) other things like racial inequality.
@@saketeas2060 I can not answer for God, he doesn't answer to me.
With this perspective, this means that I can also support the LGBTQ community and issues in good conscience despite somethings that the brethren have said?
Pryoslim yes exactly
this is a very very good question.......my one question still is that is there biblical precedent for same sex marriage being permitted biblically? Anywhere?
The Church already advocates for equal employment and housing opportunities for the LGBTQ community. However we have commandments concerning marriage and chastity and until the living prophet directs otherwise, they are what we keep.
Pryoslim you can do whatever the hell you want man. It’s your agency. You don’t have to follow everything a leader tells you. Enjoy your life and have fun, do good to others and you’ll be fine.
@@towardcivicliteracy Like the Mormon church helped blacks live the gospel of Jesus Christ from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball by segregation and banning then from salvation while claiming it was doctrinal for over 100 years... now only to disavow this earlier doctrine and behavior. Today the churches teachings and treatment of those in the LGBTQ community mirrors their earlier teachings against Blacks. How long until the church disavows this doctrine against the LGBTQ community and the apologists start justifying the mistake? The church will once again end up on the wrong side of history.
At 3:40 you say that Brigham "advocated for mixed race people." I would like to see your source please.
Here is an actual source of his thoughts on that exact subject.
“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.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 110
Yeah, these poor dudes could not possibly have worse information. To claim Young advocated he was in favor of mixed races when the reality was he stated that they deserved death, could not be more ignorant.
Man, it's actually sad. And to claim the ban wasn't doctrine when multiple prophets said it was doctrine and an eternal principle, as well as also being written in the Book of Abraham, also demonstrates some awful research or just straight up lies.
The Journal of Discourses was NEVER considered to be church doctrine period.
@@Alex808thegreat oh GREAT! That takes care of it right? Everything's good then! Shew. I was getting worried that this church and its leaders were just making it up! Oh wait, that's what you are insinuating. Turns out Brigham Young was just a huge racist who was lying when he stated it was God's law and God was talking to him in the journal of discourses. So glad that bullet was dodged. Otherwise that would look really bad. But I forgot about the old "that's not official" card that can get pulled every time a man that supposedly talks to God says things like interracial couple should die or he needs to have sex with another teen. Doesn't sound made up at all. So glad we have modern day prophets that can get us the correct "truths" about 23% of the time.
@@Alex808thegreat This issue didn't live and die with Brigham Young. Every Prophet after Brigham Young still faced the issue and claimed to have direct communication with God, saying God forbade it. It wasn't until the church received political pressure from the US government that, by a huge coincidence, God had changed his mind (which he does sometimes, apparently, like with polygamy).
@@echosmyth5021 I wasn't talking about blacks and the priesthood. I was talking about the other stuff about blacks. Also if you watch that video segment I shared with Ryan Gladden you'll find that Brigham Young was never racist. Those lies come from a tabloid source known as the Journal of Discourses, and a misunderstanding of the temporary restriction on blacks and the priesthood. Also, I am well aware that my church's general authorities had to spend decades praying for blacks to be allowed to have the priesthood before it actually happened, and that it happened at a politically convenient time.
Also, the Old Testament has instances where God commanded people to practice polygamy, and other instances where God was against it so when you criticize us for believing that God changes his mind about polygamy from time to time you're really just criticizing your own Bible.
This is a joke, right! U guys are kidding I hope.
Samuel the lamanite was a prophet and was black...
Trump the orange is currently still the president and not racist.
@@fescot349 well it's a historical document to the church.
@@Herosoulstone Technically he was a Lamanite and not African, so I am not sure what your point is?
@@brettmajeske3525 EXACTLY!!!!! It doesn't matter what skin color you have. A Freaking Prophet who was dark skin colored was litterly a prophet of God, and Christ had to litterly tell them to put him back in the records because of their misunderstandings.
The term "blacks" just automatically seems problematic to me...
It's an issue of historical usage. Many find it easier even though it is not really accurate. The Restriction really had nothing to do with skin color as certain dark skinned groups like the Mauri and Hindus were always permitted ordination.
@@brettmajeske3525 Stop justifying racism and segregation Brett. God!
@@juneholley1813 What justification did I offer?
@@brettmajeske3525 Was your church wrong to segregate members with African decent from the temples and priesthood under every prophet from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball?
Please condemn these actions here and now if you truly don't offer justifications for their racism as you claim.
@@juneholley1813 That didn't answer my question. What justifications have I offered in this thread that you felt the need to to attack me?
the church is false, with or without a fan base.
Brdn Gv What?
All religious doctrine is just an option of the writer. You cannot prove that any doctrine is true. And prophets are just liers with agendas.
America and other institutions which have a history of racism did not claim God's divine sanction in proclaiming racist things.
POINT....Did Brigham Young ever read the book of Mormon
kirkland meadows he was illiterate/barely literate so probably not
The Bible says as long as you do not kill a slave when you are beating them, that is ok and good
@Confirmed Russian Bot There is no scriptures in the bible that says the curse of cain was black skin . The BoM goes all the way dark skin is a curse .
@@reinemazidath5466 well the term "dark skin" does not refer to skin pigmentation in hebrew, but rather an unhappy countenance.
Any religion which claims direct revelation from an all powerful, all knowing divine being cannot possibly change doctrine.
Did god get it wrong?
Did the prophet get it wrong?
If god got it wrong then whatever it is, it isn't a god.
If the prophet got it wrong then nothing that prophet says can ever be taken as the truth.
like is it absolute god-given truth or is it just some guys opinion??? where is the line???
@@josephsorg What a paddling! Well done.
Justin Miller I would very much stress that one shouldn’t compare the Bible to the BoM. The Old Testament never condones rape, murder, polygamy, etc. that’s just false. It tells the history of the Jewish people, through their ups and downs, sins against God and faithfulness. For the genocide aspect, I recommend checking what Trent Horn’s (Catholic apologist) opinions of the matter. And the resurrection is a historical fact, so if you wanna discount the Old Testament from your current understanding of the situation, I would understand but not condone such a decision. But the New Testament and the resurrection are hands down true. Keep researching my brother and thanks
Justin Miller I’m Catholic, so I won’t even attempt to defend the LDS church. ok I just wanna make sure we’re reading the same exodus 21. I read it as rather enlightened for its time. it doesn’t sound that bad to me, and it’s something that occurred thousands of years ago. The ordinance was to treat the women slaves with more honor and respect especially, and if the son takes the married slave as his own, then the master should in turn treat her as a daughter. And slaves could gain freedom after 6-7 years. Also, from my understanding, the slavery back then was not even close to the horrific chattel slavery in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. chattel slavery in the Americas was life long, split families up in cruel ways. exodus prohibits against selling slaves to a foreign people (aka outside of the community, apart from Israelite morals). Pagans were doing child sacrifice and all sorts of horrible idol worship. Lastly, Jesus says to the Jewish leaders that Moses allowed divorce to occur, because of the hardness of their hearts. Perhaps God also allowed these forms of slavery because he knew the people’s hearts were still far from him at that time. God has a permissive will, meaning he can allow bad things to occur, so a greater good can come of it. Thanks
Justin Miller exodus doesn’t say that the Israelites could rape the slaves whenever they wanted, or murder them, or whipped them until they died. That was trans-Atlantic chattel slavery, not the slavery in exodus.
Genuine question. If this was not doctrine, then why pray to recieve revelation to over turn it? Also how does the " when the prophet speaks the talkings done" fit in with the "they were speaking as men"
believers make up any old crap that suits them.
This is an official statement by the first presidency. Don't let these lying apologists say its not doctrinal.
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.
The First Presidency
@@josephsorg So where are the names of the Twelve backing up this statement as doctrinal? There are fifteen witnesses to Kimball's revelatory experience. Plus the unanimous support of the Presiding Bishopric, and the Seven Presidents of the Seventy.
Not to mention that after George Albert Smith's death, both of his then councilors changed their minds. McKay said that they believed it must have been a Revelation because the alternate view was hardly conceivable. Yet after thoroughly searching the scriptures as well as the private papers of past prophets he could only conclude it was not Doctrine but a practice/policy based on traditions.
@@brettmajeske3525 The official first presidency statement about the doctrinal justification for the racism and segregation practiced by the Mormon church was made by President George Albert Smith and his two counselors, J. Reuben Clark and David O McKay. This statement was released by the first presidency of the church. The churches position was clear.
Again your apologetic defenses of this racism and horrible treatment of people with African decent is ridiculous. The Mormon church has a very clear history of racism and segregation from Brigham Young to Spencer W Kimball. There is no excuse for this behavior. None. The church was from for over 120 years. Period. Stop trying to confuse the issue and stop justifying racism and segregation that lasted long after society changed.
@@josephsorg So the fact that David O McKay, three years later changed their position does not matter to you? When McKay became Prophet he said is was a practice not a doctrine, based on tradition. I admit it is problematic, but more nuanced than you give it credit for.
And when you say it was released by the First Presidency, you know that is not true. It was a private letter to a BYU professor, who latter published it publicly. Not that it matters much, as in neither case was it confirmed by the Quorum of the Twelve. Still it is funny you hang you hat on a private communication as the ultimate word on official policy, when public statement made five years later disagree.
There was an official statement released in 1969, sent both as a new release and as a letter to all the Stake Presidents and Bishops of the Church. Why do you never cite that letter?
Again I encourage you to watch the Anxiously Engaged video. ruclips.net/video/D0hSAeBrR00/видео.html
You do have a logical problem in explaining why an all-knowing perfect God issues wrong revelations and seems to change his mind when church economy is threatened as was the case with allowing priesthood to black people. Same will probably happen to the church's ridiculous ban on homosexuality. Brigham Young's categorical condemning of blacks as the descendants of Kain and as such forever cursed, rings through the ages. I appreciate your energy and enthusiasm, sad to see it wasted on Mormonism.
The ban on the priesthood was never an issued revelation.
This exact same conversation is going to be happening in about thirty years regarding the mormon church's treatment of homosexuals. The time will come when they are finally fully embraced by the church, including temple marriage and all. And there will be young BYU students of the day trying to explain away everything that the LDS Church has done over the past few decades and continues to do regarding the LGBT community. The LDS church has historically always come around but only after intense public and societal pressure forced it. It just happens about 30 to 50 years late.
You know what would be really cool? If there was like a real living prophet who actually spoke with God and could progressively lead the way on such issues...
That would require such a God to exist, so we're shit out of luck. We'll just have to do it for our selves and drag the regressive religions along 50 years later.
What about women?? Same thing there...
Aztec Tactical *there’s never been an example of God endorsing same sex relations. It’s always been a sin. Being black is not the same thing as sexual intercourse preference. That’s something Lucifer teaches to confuse God’s children. It’s rank sophistry.*
But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
Wow, very dishonest. You should probably do more research before continuing to make fools of yourselves. It was doctrine, advocating anything to the contrary is just dishonest.
Way to live up to the 13th Article of Faith, "We believe in being honest, true...." I guess that AOF needs a foot note... "Lying for the Lard is an exception."
What is it like defending the indefensible?
My name is John Patrick Rakoto: You guys need to go way back to understand this. Ham was Noah's son He did something unspeakable and as a result all of his descendants from Aegyptus or all of Africa was cursed. When Jesus Christ in His wisdom thought it was time to lift it. He instructed Prophet Spencer W Kimball. Mock God to you're own peril.
I am now in the process of talking with Missionaries about the church. I was going to be baptized but after research I dont think I can join this church. This video has made my problems worse.
Run. Don't walk. Its a cult. Bad news is the Mormon church tracks its contacts. They will be following you for awhile, but not nearly as bad as if you got baptized. Google: Mormon Strengthening Membership Committee. Scary stuff.
pull up the ces letter and have the missionaries go through it with you... watch them have no answers and disappear...
What seems to be your problem? I admit I feel the subject deserves more respect than two college kids cracking jokes. The 'Middle' offers a more respectful discussion of some of these topics on this channel. The is also the "Be One" celebration that can be found on youtube, as well as testimonies from people like Marvin Perkins and Burgess Owens.
Perhaps this is helpful. Here is the statement read by President Hugh B. Brown in the October 1963 General Conference before he began his remarks (President David O. McKay had it published as an ‘official statement’ in March 1965 in the Deseret News):
During recent months both in Salt Lake City and across the nation considerable interest has been expressed in the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.
We again say, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny to any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.
We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned that means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.
We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.
The First Presidency.
and here is the most recent official policy statement from the Handbook of Instructions:
38.6.14
Prejudice
All people are children of God. All are brothers and sisters who are part of His divine family (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”). God “hath made of one blood all nations” (Acts 17:26). “All are alike” unto Him (2 Nephi 26:33). Each person is “as precious in his sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21).
Prejudice is not consistent with the revealed word of God. Favor or disfavor with God depends on devotion to Him and His commandments, not on the color of a person’s skin or other attributes.
The Church calls on all people to abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice toward any group or individual. Members of the Church should lead out in promoting respect for all of God’s children. Members follow the Savior’s commandment to love others (see Matthew 22:35-39). They strive to be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting prejudice of any kind. This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation.
Brett is a Mormon apologist. His goal is to confuse the issue and defend the Mormon cult. Do your own research, and do not be fooled. As others have suggested, pull up the ces letter and have the missionaries address each point with you. You should also check out the video, 50 issues with the Mormon church, on RUclips. The videos creator will respond to all comments and requests for evidence and documentation.
The priesthood ban was doctrine. The letter to Stewart Udall makes this fact very clear.
This is just like how the apostles in our day are just men of their own times and we can acknowledge that their teachings on homosexuality are wrong. It's just their opinion, not doctrine.
The church said they received REVELATION in the temple that children of same sex parents can not be members or get baptized until they are 18 and disavow their parents lifestyle. This revelation was then repealed less then 3 years later in 2015 after huge backlash. Mormon revelation is funny.
So if the ban was implemented NOT by revelation, then why was revelation needed to lift the ban? That doesn't make sense? Why did it take 100+ years for God's prophets to finally get it right and remove the ban? Why would God allow it to go on for so many long?
2 NEPHI 5:21
3 NEPHI 3:15
Have you read this chapters? How do you explain this¿¿
I gotchu fam. Dark skin isn’t a bad thing. But think about it. Nephis descendants were fair skinned. So God chose a skin that was opposite to theirs. God needed a way to differentiate the good and the bad and skin color is something that is noticeable from hundreds of feet away. You can’t even recognize someone from that far away and the only thing you can tell about them is what color skin they have.
Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...Its not doctrine...
.... guys the devil is the father of all lies is he not in your opinion?
Intentionally withholding information is tantamount to lying...
Your either ignorant to our church history or lying..
We all know it was doctrine, policies come from doctrine.
There would be no need for the 1970s revelation if not for the old doctrine and scripture to support its racist past doctrine.
I believe your well meaning guys. I just wish you would present the whole truth and let people decide for themselves.
well meaning led to the holocaust.
The first presidency specifically said its doctrine...
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.
The First Presidency
@@rustynelson2357 And David O McKay not five years later said that they were wrong and that it was a practice based on tradition not revelation.
@@brettmajeske3525 Mormon prophets before Mckay wrong?
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”
- Pres. Wilford Woodruff
@@brettmajeske3525 In October 1960, Kimball discussed the Indian placement program at the General Conference. He said that Natives who participated in the program were gradually turning lighter, becoming 'white and delightsome. "The day of the Lamanites is nigh," Kimball said, claiming that Navajo placement students were "as light as Anglos" and, in one case, several shades lighter than parents "on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather."
Guys, the presidency of Brigham Young was a slippery time for the church. He openly preached that African descended people had the curse of Ham. He indicated the priesthood ban!
I personally believe Brigham allowed his carnal opinions get to him and ultimately introduced false doctrine. Much like Aaron in the story of the golden calf, prophets have made mistakes when attempting to please the people.
My point is don’t hide the truth. Admit we’ve made mistakes but have ultimately strived to stay the organization the Lord Jesus Christ created.
They read Bruce McConkie’s words admitting he personally was wrong on the matter. McConkie openly admitted his error-there was no pretending or making justifications about his incorrect judgment.
Aaron and the golden calf is an excellent example of church leaders making mistakes. Perhaps we ought to cut them some slack when they make mistakes as even the prophet is not perfect.
If that's the case you can't claim a great apostasy unless the LDS is also apart of it
Simply put, prophets and apostles are still humans who have made mistakes. Racism was just one that we unfortunately made. The important thing is to learn from those mistakes, which we surely have. Reading this comment section hurt, and I am sorry if you got hurt by the church. Another important thing to consider, is to not judge the church by one person who was being a jerk. I sincerely pray for you people. God bless ☺️
These where not opinions & views, these were part of doctrine, you can look into it
It wasn’t just one person! It was the whole church doctrine
“So Brigham Young… *insert high voice* he was a little bit racist” 😂😂😂 trying to make it sound like it was nothing major 🤦
Brigham Young made HP Lovecraft look nice.
Everybody was racist back then! Breaking was progressively not racist for his time.
@@TheArkman360lfmao thats concerning
You mentioned that Brigham Young invited mixed race individuals to the community of mormons. I've never heard of that, only the parts where he was definitively against race mixing. Could you provide a reference?
It's very strange in this video that they use they phrase "death on the spot" because that is actually what Brigham Young taught. The fact that they said it probably means they know it and are covering it up.
Yeah, I thought the penalty for race mixing was death under Brigham Young?
@@cheryllee81 That was an actual US law at the time imposed by congress on the territory of Utah. Not a doctrine. When BY said that people would be killed, he wasn't talking about secret LDS enforcers, but the federal authorities.
Earlier during the Missouri Period. Anxiously Engaged has a fairly well detailed list of references.
@@cheryllee81 It was. Brett the Mormon apologist is lying for the lord. Do the research the record is clear. Just look at the actual words of Mormon prophets who claimed to be mouthpieces for God pre 1978.
"it's important to realize when a prophet says, 'This is doctrine', and when they're talking about things that are kind of racist, there is never in the point of history where they're like, 'This is doctrine'. "
Brigham Young:
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).
"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).
"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom . . . I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95).
"What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? The success which has attended me in my presidency is owing to the blessings and mercy of the Almighty . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 127).
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
"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." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, "We have one of the best elders, an African."
@@nocturnoculto9445 Brigham Young also said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the priesthood and of coming into the Kingdom of God and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity."
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, pp. 142-143
You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham.
Prophet Brigham Young, New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p. 56
The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, - we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.
- Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS historical department;
Cain slew his brother.... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and tehn another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the 'servant of servants,' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 290-291
Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin 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. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come.
Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 272
I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing [sic] that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants.... Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons [sic] the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick [sic], and all the elders of Isreal [sic], suppose we summons them to apear [sic] here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be pertakers [sic] with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and the Kingdom of God leaves us to our fate.
Prophet Brigham Young, Brigham Young Addresses, Feb. 5, 1852, LDS archives
@@nocturnoculto9445 he also 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." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).
If we hold to what Brigham Young said as credible and as the actual words of God--Scripture--as he affirmed his words were, then we better be willing to hold to all his teachings, as well as that of the founders of the church.
Jface does stuff , I understand you and respect your opinion and what you believe but brigham young said some things that only brigham young understood, and if for his contemporaries it would be difficult for us more, and apparently brigham young said things that sound racist and others that sound the opposite We can judge him but it is not a very fair trial, because we did not meet him in person and we did not live in his time, he once said that the Africans would receive all the blessings and more, if you want watch this video, Be One - A Celebration of the Revelation on the Priesthood, first there is a speaker and then there is a presentation by African members.
ruclips.net/video/52-y98r2ZYs/видео.html
Question for any and all nay-sayers on this piece of Church history: why do you believe prophets in the Bible can have prejudices (Jonah on Ninevah, Simon the Zealot on the Romans that had conquered Israel) or other human weaknesses (Peter denying the Savior thrice, David commiting adultery & murder yet still reviewing revelation from Heaven, Noah getting drunk and running around immodestly, Moses arrogantly asking the Hebrews why he must constantly perform miracles for them when it is God working through Moses, or James & John wanting to bring down the wrath of Heaven upon a city that didn't want to hear the teachings of Christ), but can't accept that modern prophets can also make mistakes? Every prophet who has ever lived, save Jesus alone, has needed to repent and has had human weaknesses. As to where you draw the line with what is doctrine and what is not, that's something every member must decide for themselves. Joseph Smith once said he had vowed never to vote for a Democrat, but I know several left-leaning Latter Day Saints. This was because he's gone to the U.S. President Martin Van Buren, a Democrat, looking for help for the Saints that were being viciously persecuted, and Van Burem's response was essentially "You're right, I should help, but I'll lose the vote in Missouri if I do, so no." And Lilburn Boggs, governor of Missouri and a Democrat, was the one responsible for the Extermination Act, which I dare any anti-mormon to justify such an evil and unconstitutional action. The Gospel in the New Testament wasn't taught to the Gentiles until after the Savior ascended into Heaven. Does that mean the Church was prejudiced against non-Jews and that it "changed it's mind"? No. God was waiting for the right time, and in His infinite wisdom, this was the right time to bring them the Gospel. I don't know why it took so long for the priesthood to be given to the black members of our Church, but I suggest you listen to their testimonies. In 2018, the Church had a world-wide celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Priesthood ban being lifted and many black members shared stories of their unwavering faith in the Gospel and their deep gratefulness for the lifting of the ban. Dallin H. Oaks shared the experience of when Pres. Kimball called him to tell of the revelation he'd received that told him the policy of the priesthood end was over. It was time for all worthy members to access the blessings of the priesthood. And Pres. Oaks wept for joy, along with his friends, family, and fellow members. When Joseph Smith ran for office, he ran as an abolitionist. One of the primary reasons the Church was hated and persecuted was due to us being strong advocates of ending slavery in America in the border state Missouri. And as Kwaku said, if you want to base black people not being part of a Church because there was bigotry to them in the past, then I expect you to go to every black members of any denomination and tell them they can't be Christian at all. They can't be American, go to college, be in the military, in the police force, part of Congress, in many countries, and it's a very narrow minded view of the world around you. Let other people make decisions for themselves! If they don't want to join us because of this piece of history, no one's forcing them to join, or stay if they want to leave. Show some decency towards those you disagree with and allow people to believe in what they want.
Sorry but they're NOT PROPHETS. ..just racists pushing their racists views on people
It took me 5 minutes to realize this wasn't satire and my minds fucked because I honestly thought this video was a joke.
that is Mormonism for you
Bruhhh😹😹😹
Could you change the name to "3 liars" please? You are deceptive manipulators of truth.
Huh, the SDA Church started in 1844, officially a church in 1863. One of our founders was the prophetess Ellen G White. And it is interesting that she never made racist statements and she advocated for abolition. So, all of Christianity was NOT racist by doctrine or personal beliefs.
I also find it disturbing how Mormons always seem to try to drag the Bible down with their own doctrinal issues. As if two wrongs make a right. Or we are bad but the Bible is too or it's worse. Except the examples are always faulty in their interpretation. I.e in this video the conflating of Gods judgement on Canaan is the same as Mormon racism in it's early days.
Does that mean when Christ judges the world, He is going to be racist for doing so? Blasphemy! Because these judgements of God in history are set as an example for us, according to the Apostle Paul.
I don't hate Mormons. I want them to see the truth. And because Mormons are practicing a false religion, I don't like the doctrine. It's the ideology, not the people. And it is a serious matter. God bless
SDAs push very unhealthy veganism.
"Those views aren't doctrine, they aren't true, and we don't have to look at them as if they're from God."
But at the time they were doctrine and came from supposed prophets of God.
You also cited racism from the pulpit as an evidence of apostasy _in a video about the LDS church doing the exact same thing._ How is it that when other churches did it it was a sign of apostasy, but when the Mormon church did it (for decades longer than the vast majority of other churches I might add), it's just a mistake by past leaders? That's especially hard to justify while also making the claim that those past leaders were prophets who received revelation directly from God.
exactly, so why can’t we look at the homophobic things and sexist things they do now and say that’s not doctrine?
@@savannawoods4376 Dont worry they will. Eventually society will force the mormon church to stop their homophobic and sexist teachings and they will come up with a new "revelation" abandon the old doctrine. Then the apologists will spin a narrative to try to preserve faith. No difference when the church stopped polygamy, teaching blood atonement, Adam god doctrine, and the racist rhetoric against people of color. We wont be fooled.
I was a believing member of the LDS church and attended Brigham Young University in Utah. It was during my time as a student there that I discovered Brigham Young's racist history and the horrific doctrine that he taught his congregants. This racist doctrine has direct ties with Book of Mormon verses referring to God's punishment taking the form of dark skin. I also discovered the 'September Six', real progressives who advocated for equal treatment and transparency and as a result were excommunicated. Make no mistake, the strict adherence to the dogmatic teachings of this hierarchical church and its leaders continues to create inequality within the religion. Blacks now have access to the priesthood, but women? No, they have a different social standing within your belief. It is not equal. The same can be said for gays who cannot live their lives openly and honestly within the church, which demands that they practice celibacy. I'm glad that I left the church back then and the name "Brigham Young" does not appear anywhere on my degree.
@@towardcivicliteracy Here is the first presidency statement on this topic from 1949. Do some research.
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.
The First Presidency
lol
Current member but with serious questions on the church the last 5 years. I don’t blame anyone for having serious questions on the church and huge inconsistencies or logical issues of doctrine and beliefs, and with the history 9f the church, but I have to say I always think it’s funny when people give the church grief for not allowing women into the priesthood, or changing church policy and commandments so that
members can still be considered worthy and or temple worthy if they are practicing gay lifestyles or in a relationship sexually with someone of the same sex. I find this thinking asinine and contradictory, because it wouldn’t be the church if they suddenly started saying you cold have a relationship or get sealed to the same sex. Or if women could get priesthood. At that point if God allowed us to rewrite the church and scriptures how we want them, what would be the point at all to all of it? I am more than fine by the way if people want to get married and what not to people of the same sex or whatever and am all for equality so that people can be accepted and loved, but I’m just saying that to expect a religion to make these changes is absurd because it wouldn’t really be the church if they stopped only believing in marriage between a man and a women. It’s a religion, not a government.
homosexuality is a sin no matter what church you go to
I'm glad you found your place in life without something that you did not agree with. However, you should probably educate yourself a bit more in terms of what happened. The Book of Mormon (and the Bible BTW) make no reference to a skin colour being a curse or a "punishment". You, like many, fail to understand that the curse was the spiritual separation of God from those that chose to be disobedient (Cain, the Lamanites, etc.). That, was the curse (Genesis 4: 11-12). The skin colour was to protect Cain (read Genesis 4: 13-15) from being harmed and was in no way a curse to his descendants. The same curse and mark is used in the BOM. The skin colour is NOT a curse. If it were so, the Lamanites would not have been able to come back into the fold of God, which they clearly did throughout the history of the BOM. Without a doubt leaders of the LDS Church interpreted things in a time that was very different than today. Looking back to the 1800's from 2023 seems so easy, but it fails to account for the cultural norms of the time. The United States in and of itself was filled with racism with Christian denominations segregating their congregations. The LDS Church allowed blacks and anyone of any colour to be baptized. To indicate that these black members (as well as those that have joined the Church today) are somehow ignorant or have been deceived is really portraying them as incapable of making their own decision and to feel the spirit convey to them the truth of the restored gospel.
One thing I think gets left out of the conversation is that it was a priesthood AND TEMPLE ban. It wasn't just that black men weren't allowed to receive the priesthood, it was that black men and women weren't allowed to receive their temple ordinances. Sometimes we focus only on the priesthood part of it and forget that our sisters were also affected! Also, it should be noted that the ban had a ripple effect in black people's ability to serve in callings, speak in meetings, receive patriarchal blessings, and marry interracially. So glad that the horrible ban was ended and we are back on the right track!
You are not back on the right track. What are you talking about... Your doctorine wouldn't change like that and get off track and then come back if it was from God. That makes no sense.
The horrible ban? You mean your perfect God was incapable of letting his prophets know that black people should be allowed all the rights and privileges of Church membership for all those years?
So, God is either impotent or racist.
Or he doesn't exist at all.
@@amyv8416 Well God does exist...We can look at the molecular level and see that. just not the god of the Mormons...The God of Israel spoken of in the Bible is true.
@@SPECIALTRADER1 if he exists, then he's either weak and useless or he's a genocidal, misogynistic racist, which describes the God of the Bible perfectly.
I'm not saying he absolutely does not exist. I'm saying that I do not believe he exists.
Go ahead and prove he does exist at a molecular or any other level.
@@SPECIALTRADER1 There isn't a proclamation creating the ban. It was not doctrine as David O McKay openly stated. Men make mistakes, and then they repent.
Well after having watched Pres Nelson's Sunday morning conference address, there is another Prophetic quote to add to the list. President Nelson reiterated that God loves all of his children and emphasized that racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be tolerated.
“I assure you that your standing before God is not determined by the color of your skin. Favor or disfavor with God is dependent upon your devotion to God and His commandments and not the color of your skin.”
"Since they believe in 'continuous revelation,' Mormons have a mechanism that enables them to reverse previous positions without repudiating the past.... That the church will invoke such a mechanism to resolve the racial issue is not too unlikely... this approach has a serious drawback. It is the tendency not to acknowledge the errors of the past. While revelation could be used to legitimate a new racial policy and to redefine Mormon relations with black people, Mormons might still be unwilling to condemn the racism involved in their history. They might be inclined to argue that Mormons in earlier periods were under a different mandate than the one binding them. This obviously implies that the church is never wrong. Thus, change may come through the notion of continuing revelation, but the racist aspects of Mormon history will not necessarily be condemned."
The Journal of Religious Thought, Autumn-Winter 1973, pp. 57-58
@@carolhudson2965 Have you watched Pres Nelson's talk?
What do you think about what he said?
@@brettmajeske3525 I have. He is being hypocritical and he is gaslighting.
@@carolhudson2965 Why do you feel that way?
I though Pres Nelson was quite clear in denouncing racism. Last year he was invited to speak at the NACP conference in Detroit.
How is denouncing racist behavior gaslighting?
@@brettmajeske3525
June 9, 2020 Wil Colom, special counsel to the NAACP president, said the group “hasn’t seen very much” progress on joint projects.
The LDS Church has united with the historic black activists, to explore “ways to work together to improve self-reliance and upward mobility for inner-city and minority families.”
Indeed, the two organizations have collaborated on a handful of employment and education initiatives. But those were “minor efforts,” Colom said. They “do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do and should do.”
The NAACP is “looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church,” Colom said, and by their “endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws.”
Derrick Johnson - the NAACP president and CEO, who signed the op-ed with Nelson and who met in Salt Lake City with the Latter-day Saint leader in May 2018 - said Monday that Colom was authorized to speak for the organization.
ACTUAL Mormon doctrine:
"And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a *dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people* , full of idleness and all manner of abominations." (1 Ne. 12:23)
@@towardcivicliteracy In October 1960, Kimball discussed the Indian placement program at the General Conference. He said that Natives who participated in the program were gradually turning lighter, becoming 'white and delightsome. "The day of the Lamanites is nigh," Kimball said, claiming that Navajo placement students were "as light as Anglos" and, in one case, several shades lighter than parents "on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather."
@@juneholley1813 I know we are discussing this on another thread, but thought it worthwhile that those reading this one gets the full context:
"These Indian Elders are well-groomed, neat, smiling, and equal to their white companions...I have heard them bear their witness, saw then shed tears of joy, heard them express the affection for loved ones."
"In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty are as light as Anglos; five are darker but just as delightsome."
"Surely the number of deprived ones is being reduced, and opportunity is knocking on their door. Hundreds of Lamanites are serving in mission fields both in the Americas and the island of the sea. Lamanites are exercising their Priesthood and raising their families in righteousness. God bless the Lamanites and hasten their day of total emancipation from the thralldom of their yesterday.
"
So your quote about being "light as Angelos" is actually talking about a photograph of missionaries. Two groups, one with lighter skin, the other with darker skin, but both "...just as delightsome."
@@juneholley1813 White and Delightsome
@@georgezeller6046 You do realize that in Biblical Hebrew, white and pure are the same word? Hebrew never uses to mean skin color. Check out the Book of Job.
Marvin Perkins has done some wonderful scholarship on the subject.
@@brettmajeske3525 "scholarship" defending the Mormon churches institutionalized racism.
Ian, now that you know that there was a time when the LDS "prophet" said the black ban was doctrine, even a "direct commandment of the Lord", how do you stand by what you said a 1:30-1:40 in the clip? It seems you had reconciled this because you thought no LDS prophet had ever said it was doctrine. Now that you know it had been so declared, why don't you man up and correct the misstatements, and explain how you can belong to such a racists facade the LDS faith?
You should look up David O McKay who after researching the historical documents decided that there was no Doctrine supporting the ban. He had believed that it must exist, but after looking, found that he couldn't find it. After his Presidency all the Prophets following him recognized it as a practice or policy and not Doctrine.
Brett the Apologist said sure Mormon prophets were a little racist. Sure they segregated people with african decent and claimed they were cursed with dark skin until 1978, but did you see that David O McKay said racism was wrong and one day the church would stop its bad behavior? (never mind that Mormons continued to segregate when McKay was prophet and in charge) See Mormons are not racist! /s
@@juneholley1813 While I respect that you have a different opinion, I do find your continued attempts to put words in my mouth to be both offensive and childish. You restatement of my position is ether the result of mental deficit or deliberate dishonesty.
As you seem uninterested in a rational discussion about the actually difficulties and struggles as recorded by those that lived them, instead dismissing their opinions and humanity, I believe I will let you rant in peace.
Please continue supporting Saints Unscripted. As the algorithm does not distinguish between positive and negative comments, your rants only help spread the Gospel message, and for that I thank you.
@@brettmajeske3525 Your claim that I am supporting Saints Unscripted by speaking out about their (your) disgusting defense of racism is laughable. RUclips has greatly contributed to the Mormon churches bleeding of membership as people wake up and realize just what type of church they are a part of.
I stand for equality to all regardless of color. I stand for honesty and transparency. I will continue my missionary work exposing the mormon cult.
You are a dishonest mormon apologist defending horrible behavior and no one is fooled.
Was just reading the updated Handbook of Instructions and came across this section:
"38.6.14
Prejudice
All people are children of God. All are brothers and sisters who are part of His divine family (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”). God “hath made of one blood all nations” (Acts 17:26). “All are alike” unto Him (2 Nephi 26:33). Each person is “as precious in his sight as the other” (Jacob 2:21).
Prejudice is not consistent with the revealed word of God. Favor or disfavor with God depends on devotion to Him and His commandments, not on the color of a person’s skin or other attributes.
The Church calls on all people to abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice toward any group or individual. Members of the Church should lead out in promoting respect for all of God’s children. Members follow the Savior’s commandment to love others (see Matthew 22:35-39). They strive to be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting prejudice of any kind. This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation."
That is about as official as it gets.
Edit: My conversation seems one sided because the person I was interacting with choose to violate community guidelines. Please be respectful, I do not like one sided conversations.
In our earlier conversation we talked about what was preached from the pulpit and official publications. I argued that recent statements are not that different to what was officially preached in the past, hear are some examples:
May 2013, Gospel Topic Essays
"In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”
The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Latter-day Saint congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community. The Church’s lay ministry also tends to facilitate integration: a black bishop may preside over a mostly white congregation; a Hispanic woman may be paired with an Asian woman to visit the homes of a racially diverse membership. Church members of different races and ethnicities regularly minister in one another’s homes and serve alongside one another as teachers, as youth leaders, and in myriad other assignments in their local congregations. Such practices make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a thoroughly integrated faith...
During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”…
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…
The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous-regardless of race-is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
Bruce R. McConkie 1978:
There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.
"Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
In 1972, Harold B. Lee said,
"It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."
Joseph Fielding Smith-1970
“We know of no scripture, ancient or modern, that declares that at the time of the rebellion in heaven that one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral. ... That one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral and therefore were cursed by having a black skin, could hardly be true, for the negro race has not constituted one-third of the inhabitants of the earth.”
Wilford Woodruff recorded the following in his journal:
December 25, 1869: I attended the School of the Prophets. Many questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said no they were not. There were no neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides. He said if anyone said that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirits of the Blacks were neutral in heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary.
All spirits are pure that come from the presence of God... But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam except the sons of perdition.
@@brettmajeske3525 nice he said that... as he continued to segregate and preach racism for 6 more years after the statement. Gaslighting 101!
Isn't it interesting that the mormon god has such difficulty finding just ONE good man who can simply follow directions? Who can say, "You got it, boss! I will repeat your wishes word for word to your believers!" Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, just to name 2 prophets, were horrible people. There really weren't 2 honest men alive at the time that god could have chosen instead of those 2?
Nothing good can ever come from something based on a lie! Now that the cat's been let out of the bag, people are leaving the church in droves. I predict any new recruits in the future will be from poor countries with little to no Internet access. The problem for the church is, these people have no money for missions or tithes.
God has always chosen the right prophet. The prophet can not lead us astray. Who are we to question god will. I choose to follow.
@@samwilcox3883 good cultist...
If Mormons aren't racist anymore (at least AFTER 1978 and the reversal of the priesthood and temple ordinance ban on blacks), why would Saints Unscripted REMOVE Kwaku El from all of the video thumbnails with him in it?!?! Not a good look, particularly with all of the current cast being white. Who decided to white-wash the thumbnails? Is it a matter of time before all of Kwaku El's videos are simply removed?!?!
There are 3 black guys on the thumbnail...
the ban was lifted around the same time Barbra Walters interviewed the Donny and Marie Osmond on national TV. She went straight for the jugular: she said what's with this business of not ordaining blacks as clergy...soon after, the elders had a REVELATION tat all races could attain the clergy, or priest holder in the LDS...
I thought it was because their Tax Exempt status was being threatened by the government. They did not want to pat taxes so , suddenly, their “prophet “ at that time suddenly had a direct revelation from God that it was time to admit African Americans to their priesthood.
U would think God's people would have God's spirit of love, clean from irrational hatred. And u would think self respecting black people would not align themselves with racist and allow unclean spirited man to speak for God
The gaslighting here is just insane
What parts?
Kwake would be shot dead by Brigham Young.
Sad, but true.
please quote your source
@@bman3074
"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." Brigham Young, (March 8, 1863.) Journal of Discourses 10:110.
@@juneholley1813 Well that was US law. Not that there is any evidence that BY ever enforced it. In fact he known to be friends with a mixed race Elder of the Church.
@@brettmajeske3525 Brigham Young had a black friend once, so he was not a racist. Got it!
The Blacks not being able to receive priesthood was doctrine until 1978. If LDS prophets are truly prophets of God, and the LDS church is the restored Church...perfect, then blacks having priesthood should have been doctrine AND policy from the start. It wasn't doctrine and policy back in the early church history because Brigham Young was racist and ignorant, and so were most of the prophets who followed. They weren't God inspired, they were pushing white men's prevalent ideas and sentiment at that time. LDS believe(d) that Blacks are black because they have the curse of Cain due to being indifferent in taking sides during the war in heaven. Blacks are black because they come from Africa, most of which is hot and sunny. Black skin protects against things like skin cancer in a very sunny place. Blacks being cursed and given black skin for being lazy in pre-existence is the explanation ignorant people of that time would give. Why was polygamy stopped? Because there was a convenient revelation to stop polygamy when Utah wanted statehood. Utah wasn't going to get statehood as long as polygamy was officially legal. What about the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Why would a loving God select a man like Brigham Young to be a prophet in His newly restored church that has the fullness of the gospel? Unfortunately, man often makes God in his own image and God speaks through men who claim to be prophets. The Bible teaches there would be no more prophets after Malachi until the Messianic Age. It amazes me how many young Mormons know so little about the early church, however if they do find out on the Internet, many lose their faith and leave. This is why so many are leaving in North America. It requires too many intellectual gymnastics to keep the faith in the Internet age. Those who stay often twist their minds into pretzels trying to justify what happened in the Church's past.
Blacks and the priesthood was not of god it was racism
I was reading the “Race and the Priesthood” essay by the Church. What is interesting is that they never say the ban was wrong. All they say is that they disavow the reasons for it. And even then they dont deny the reasons previously given as being incorrect. To disavow means to not support. What the church is saying is that we don’t know why. It could be for the reasons that all the prophets and apostles were saying . But we don’t know. That does not refute the reasons we were given for so many decades. But let me be clear, I do not believe that any of the presidents of the church were racist. Period.
"I do not believe that any of the presidents of the church were racist. Period." How in the hell can you say this with a straight face? Mormon prophets are responsible for the segregation and racism that was preached as gods will and doctrine until 1978. Mormon prophets said and did horrible racist things for generations and generations. Its well documented. Your statement above is ridiculous.
And you are right. The Mormon church has never said their segregation and racist teachings were wrong. This is part of the problem. The Mormon church taught that black skin was a curse, and racist policies were doctrinal and gods will, and justified. Today they disavow these earlier doctrines that were taught as gods will for 129 years, but come up short of apologizing or recognizing their roll in perpetuating inequality. Its disgusting.
Glenn I like your comment
It is unfair that people want to make this church totally responsible for the racism that Africans lived through for almost 400 years of enslavement and persecution in the United States and they forget that the church did not persecute or murder Africans and that they could be baptized and be saved like anyone else.
@@nocturnoculto9445 The church is not "totally responsible" for the racism Africans lived through for 400 years. They are responsible for preaching racism and segregation as the will of god until 1978. Today the church disavows this earlier doctrine. The Mormon church is responsible for advocating against equality and pushing racist ideals as doctrine. For a church that claims they have a prophet that knows gods will and can not lead us astray... this is problematic.
That teaching will always be at the foundation of the Mormon faith No Way Around It
I do not understand how a black man in 2020 can be a member of this church. Mind blown.
Maybe this can help you understand. ; )
I'm a Black Mormon, Lets Talk About Racism
ruclips.net/video/NEnPSDTYJ_s/видео.html
A Black Guy Defends the Book of Mormon
ruclips.net/video/5MJwnguO-I0/видео.html
@@tadgriffin1977 try defending men living in the sun
@@krissander1 Ummm... i do not understand what the point of your comment is. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not, nor has it ever, taught that "men live in the sun". So.... why would such a claim need defending? Odd.
@@tadgriffin1977 Brigham Young taught it in a sermon, and he also claimed that any sermon he gave was scripture.
@@krissander1 With all due respect... i am sorry but that is simply not the way doctrine is established within the Church. Your point of view on the matter sounds like the sort of thing people say when they are more familiar with criticisms they find online than they are with how things actually work in the Church. Big difference!
Here is a link to more information on the matter if your interested: www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Brigham_Young_actually_teach_that_the_sun_and_the_moon_were_inhabited%3F
Again, there is no reason to "defend" a claim that makes no sense- even if it carries a lot of "shock-value" among internet trolls. : ) While there are criticisms of the Church that could be taken seriously the one you have presented here is simply not one of them.
I can't believe LDS trying to act like..."its all good".. There is a legacy of hate with t
Sorry, it's not hard to find multiple church articles discussing the curse on blacks as doctrine. You can also find quotes from multiple Church leaders referring to its policy as doctrine. In his letters to Lowry Nelson (and signed by the first presidency) it was clear that as president that George Albert Smith believe the church's exclusion of blacks for temple blessings was doctrinal. And then of course there is this quote from Dallin Oaks "I don't know that it's possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine" With that in mind, is the Church's current policies against LGBTs doctrine or opinion?
1949 First presidency statement on this issue:
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.
The First Presidency
I'd never even heard of the Mormon church until I met a black American in Brazil who told me, I, he and every black on the entire planet were considered to be cursed by the Mormons. Hey, I'm not perfect, but I never once considered myself to be cursed. Sometimes, people really should just keep their religious opinions to themselves.
I would argue most LDS do not consider Blacks cursed. Especially in Brazil where the majority of LDS Church leaders have African ancestors.
@@brettmajeske3525 I would argue, having been to Brazil and seen the ravages of literally 500 years of anti-black slavery on Brazilian society, a society that imported almost 6 million enslaved black men, women and even children - more than any other nation in the history of humanity - a society where anti-black racism still holds, a racism that afflicts all levels of society including the LDS. Further, there is no way the LDS can sell itself en mass if it wanted to, to black people given its deeply disturbing racist history. I think the ban on US blacks to move up the ranks of its organizational structure was only lifted when the US Federal government threatened to claim taxes from the LDS. Hardly, a change of moral attitudes, but certainly financial.
"White and delightsome"
"From the days of the Prophet Joseph 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, July 17 1947. George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark Jr.
And in the 1950's David O McKay said that statement was wrong. He had assumed it must be doctrine, but after extensive research he could not find a revelation stating it so and concluded it was a practice based on tradition, and not a doctrine. Every following prophet agreed.
GA Smith was also mistaken in that JS did ordain blacks. Even prophets can make mistakes when speaking of their own knowledge. Note that did not come from an official declaration.
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”
- Pres. Wilford Woodruff, October 1890
@@georgezeller6046 Anxiously Engaged has an hour long video dealing with exactly that concern.
I should point out that was a statement of Pres Woodruff's opinion rather than something sustained as doctrine. Still I largely agree with it, once one defines the "lead astray". Woodruff was talking about the end of the practice of plural marriage. He put forth new revelation, (now known as Declaration 1 in the D&C). This revelation, after having been sustained by the first presidency, the Q of the 12, and the 7 Presidents, but not the full Seventy was not being received well in certain parts of the Church.
I do not believe that Woodruff's intent was to claim that every stray utterance to come out of his mouth was to be treated as scripture, nor that he was claiming to be perfect in all things. Rather he was talking about the claim of direct revelation, as sustained by the other general authorities.
No such revelation for the priesthood restriction has ever been presented.
The earliest statement that can be considered official is in 1949, at even that was in a private letter sent to a BYU professor. It was only signed by the First Presidency, not the Q of the 12, or 7 Pres of the 70. And then less than five years later, two of the three signers claimed that aspects of that letter were honest mistakes. They believed a revelation must have started the ban, but after years of investigation proved no record existed, realized they had been wrong in the matter and publicly said so.
@@georgezeller6046 Brett is a Mormon apologist. His job is to confuse the issue and shift blame off the Mormon church. Do your own research. Just look at what Mormon prophets and leaders had to say about people of african decent pre 1978. What did they say about Native Americans and their skin color changing from light to dark to light again? The evolution of Mormon theology is clear.
@@juneholley1813 EXACTLY!!!!
U can CLEARLY see how embarassed the white guy and Kwaku were saying this lot of lies... shame on you, guys, shame on u! This is called gaslighting!
It was the American culture that shifted because of outspoken leaders against racism, like Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Fredrick Douglas, etc. The church did not lead the charge. I am fascinated and amused that when Gladys Knight converted, she took a kind of pride in helping Mormons sing with more feeling.
The second "m" isn't fooling anyone.
the silent M
sad to see kwaku was removed from the thumnail.
Ian, do you have the integrity to correct your video or not?
I'm willing to bet 'not'
Mormonism is about loyalty to the cult first, not doing what is right. The church segregated until 1978, has never apologized, and continues to gas light the world about their involvement in pushing for racism. Ian is just being a good Mormon.
lds members whom go against lds prophets r shunned by lds church
true. just go to ex mormon reddit and see how members who question are treated.
“There was never a point in time where it was said ‘this is doctrine’” uhhhhhh yes there were.. many times by many prophets and apostles.. wtf?
Not as many as you might think, and never in canon scripture. While it was the opinion of some that there was a doctrinal basis, including a former secretary to the First Presidency who said as much in personal letters, the first time a Prophet made an official statement, sent to the Stake, Wards, and news media, was David O McKay. He claimed it was a practice not a doctrine and that the Church did not know why the policy was implemented but assumed Heavenly Father knew.
When one looks at the official declaration, proclamations, and other official statements of the Church, the issue is mostly ignored. For the most part when one finds explanatory statements, they are crouched in language like, "It is possible or likely that..." rather than definitive statements. And many quotes attributed to Prophets on the subject are either personal correspondence never intended for the public, or quotes taken from before the individuals calling.
For example, Mormon Doctrine was published 12 years before Bruce R McConkie was ordained an Apostle. At the time it was written it was just the personal opinions of retired Military Intelligence interrogator. Indeed, after his call to the Apostleship, McConkie revised the book removing many of the more controversial content, including his previous opinions on race. Unfortunately, the revised edition never became as popular as the original.
My personal opinion on the matter is that the ban in 1850 was from God. They explanations for the ban might not have been. I don’t think Brigham Young was racist. I don’t think he was wrong to do what he did.
If you don't think Brigham Young was wrong to deny exaltation to a whole group of people, only because of their African decent, then you are morally corrupt and most likely a racist yourself.
@3 Mormons, With your failed logic of;
}}"The views that they had that were racist are not doctrine. There not true. And we don't have to look at them as if they're from god."{{
They it is the same for Homosexuality.
How is it that you took the black guy off the thumbnail???? Where Kwaku
Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. Brigham Young and John Taylor had some regrettable run-ins regarding black men and LDS women, so they decided that they wouldn’t ordain black men to the priesthood. There was no revelation given by the Lord to institute such a practice, but it continued through the 1970s. Shortly after the São Paulo Brazil Temple was announced in 1975, local church leaders pointed out to the Brethren that many local mixed-race members carry African blood and would therefore be exempt from the blessings of the temple that was being built for their benefit. Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his Counselors and the Apostles prayed in 1978 if they could ordain black men to the priesthood and the Lord responded in the affirmative. In fact, I heard an Apostle visiting my mission in 1981 say the Lord basically said, “I never said you couldn’t (ordain black men).”
So why did the Lord allow such a practice for well over a century? Only the Lord can answer that, but I suspect it was to teach the Saints numerous lessons and try their faith. We could also ask why God allowed numerous dispensations to fall into apostasy, including the Dispensation of Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ was the Savior of the world, why did God allow him to be brutally tortured and murdered and make it appear that the Romans and Jewish hierarchy seemingly won the battle against the preacher from Galilee? Why were Joseph and Hyrum Smith allowed to be murdered in cold blood and make it appear that the Mormon-haters seemingly won the battle against the new prophet?
Much faith among believers in Christ has been tested since Adam and Eve, and those who remain faithful are stronger and will receive the Kingdom of Heaven. Consider all the black people who joined the Church while the practice of withholding the priesthood and temple blessings from blacks was in place. What extraordinary faith was required by those black people to join the Church anyway! Yet their reward in Heaven is greater than we can ever imagine.
Don't focus on the past. Look to the future with faith and confidence knowing that the steadfast followers of Christ will be bathed with blessings innumerable!
@Andre Smith No, that isn't what he said at all.
brigham young also had lds desserters murdered by dannites
God, you guys are definitely very in tune with how typical Mormons respond to questions
Exactly ‼️
Forget everything Brigham Young has said about this matter... why not in ALL matters? Because the man was no prophet at all, and the whole Mormon doctrine is nothing but men made
I don't understand a few things about the LDS please help. If the leaders of the church are prophets of God, why would it take 100 years to lift the bWhy would they think or say something(black skin) that He created was a curse? Wouldn't someone who has a one on one relationship with God have known better?Also, does God speak English? By this I mean modern contemporary English or do prophets hear 15th century English when He speaks? I ask because LDS text aren't written in 19th century language even though that's when were translated?
In the Bible there was a long time when the race of the Levites we're the only ones allowed by God to have certain priesthood rights and be temple workers. This was not for unkind racist reasons against all other members and races of the church. (ONLY a thought.) God does not tell us ALL reasons for some things until after this life. He's not hiding something. He's always giving us line upon line a little at a time to grow. :-) Thank you for your research on official statements and actual Doctrines that come from the source!
This is the statement on this topic by the first presidency. Do some research Janalee. SMH.
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.
The First Presidency
Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, "We have one of the best elders, an African."
@@nocturnoculto9445 How is the hell does this statement undo over 120 years of racism and segregation practiced by the Mormon church? Only a cult member who drinks the koolaid could have your view point.
June Holley , Ma'am, with all due respect, what I mention is not to undo anything, it is to show that brigham young can sound racist at times and quite the opposite at other times.
@@nocturnoculto9445 I am sure you can find quotes that make Hitler sound horrible or quite the opposite too. Was he a good person, No.
you mean the prophets were wrong? that has put so much doubt in our leaders, the prophet and ther church.Theres no difinite grounding? Im not happy being a mormon and ive been a mormon for 47 years please respon!!!
I think the guys did a great job explaining that the church leaders are imperfect and that we should always keep in mind the difference between doctrine and opinions. The doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ were restored bit by bit including the truth about black people; specifically that they are equal. At the time of the restoration of the church, very few people in the US knew that all races are equal in the eyes of God. we should be grateful that the church was taught that truth and embraced it.
okay, ive seen alot of things in the church. To give an excuse to say that was just an opinion and not doctrine comes to late, for some. Many have been born in the church, many converted on prophets messages and to question his wisdom if it is opinion or not is shakey.Im not racist, i love all people being a member, but this aspect is very important and be cleared properly because it involves history and many millions of lives. Thanks for responding P.S Can't wait to see next episode.
@@reckless3589 Doctrine is always confirmed by the full body of Apostles. Scripture, Official Proclamations, Official Instructional materials (Sunday School and Missionary), Conference Talks, these are clear sources of doctrine. Independently published books, and BYU lectures (while often uplifting) are not.
@@reckless3589 Brett is a Mormon apologist. His job is to confuse the issue and shift blame off the Mormon church. Do your own research. Just look at what Mormon prophets and leaders had to say pre 1978. The evolution of theology is clear.
The fact that this video refers to black people as "Blacks" lets you know everything you need to know.
This is your brain on Mormonism.
How odd you took Kwaku off the thumbnail ???
You’re seriously misinformed. Do your research before making a video.
On 17 July 1947, the LDS First Presidency wrote to Lowry Nelson, Mormon professor at Utah State Agricultural College regarding the status of Blacks in the Church:
"Dear Brother Nelson:
". . . The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assinged to superior positions before the world was formed.
"We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. 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 doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore. From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is 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.
"Furthermore, 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 partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, 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.
"Faithfully yours,
George Albert SmithJ. Reuben Clark, Jr.David O. McKay"
Lowry responded on 8 October:
"The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist."
The First Presidency answered:
"We feel very sure that you are aware of the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.
"You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God."
These two really know how to tap dance.
In 1978 God changed his mind about black people. 😂😂😂
That bowl is way too small for the goldfish. They need a large, heated, amd aerated tank. Of course, this was a year ago, so it's probably dead already.
The question is when is the LDS church going to allow women and trans people into priesthood. Remember religion tends to change when society does.
What's wrong with this picture.. Oooohhhhhhhh you guys forgot to put credits! 'Brought to you by the LDS Church. You know us as, The Mormons.' That's kinda naughty of them to pretend to be just two young guys. Tho.
Generally RUclips isn't run that way. Cuz it's generally genuine, not a mind control move by a billion dollar church doing damage control. I guess they couldn't just be up front about it tho and say they paid for this whole thing because, ya know, that'd just be creepy.
Fabled Creature Thank you for your concern and for teaching us about how RUclips is run. :) The LDS Church has absolutely no say in what we do with this show.
@@SaintsUnscripted Why are you guys avoiding responding to the comments? In the pinned post you say you will respond. There are many very important questions for you to clarify. Avoiding these responses says volumes about your integrity and your church. Mormonism can not survive a critical analysis, so you hide.
@@juneholley1813 Maybe because this video is more than 2 years old, and they made multiple other videos?
@@brettmajeske3525 They are intentionally avoiding the topic. They are active on RUclips and get the notifications. Their silence is intentional. Read their pinned post on this video where they claim they will respond... then see how they have ducked and dodged.
@@juneholley1813 But they have responded, by making other videos. A much wider distribution than just a single comment to a thread.
When we learn about history we ALWAYS need to remember that history was made by imperfect men, and women who were ALL in need of a savior. None of us lived then, we do not know what it was like, and we never will. Just as their culture in the past unknowingly, and knowingly, excused, or promoted terrible acts that hurt people we cannot deny that we are involved in a modern culture that accepts, and promotes bad things that hurt people as well, some of it we are conscious about, and others we are not. It’s easy to finger wag because hindsight is 2020. Accept the fact that if you were a German in the 1930s under Hitlers Germany you would likely be on par with the beliefs of the German people at that time. Whenever we imagine ourselves in past discrimination we always imagine we’d be the hero. Guess what? Heros were few and far between, because at times there were consequences to speaking out, or standing up (socially and legally sometimes even physically). If you were a regular saint in the time of the early church, or just a regular person at the time of slavery, you’d likely have kept your head down if you disagreed with the practice, or you would have participated or excused it. Hero’s were rare, and now because of those hero’s, and cultural changes due to the fact that as a people we strive to do and be better we are far away from what we were in the past. You have the potential to be just as bad, as those who lived before you. Humble yourself, read the BOM, and then pray about it. Don’t feed the Anti-Mormon trolls. That is all 😊
Is policy driven by lds doctrine or whatever the culture in Utah is at the time?