Mormons, African-Americans reconcile to seek family roots

By Ben Smith

Photo of Sarah Jackson.

Sarah Jackson (in red) attended the Family History Conference at the Atlanta History Center on Saturday.

Sarah Jackson does not remember her first visit to Salt Lake City fondly.

She recalled how in 1977 the charter bus carrying her basketball team pulled beside the Mormon Temple and her coach told her black people weren’t allowed inside. At dinner at a popular restaurant, Jackson remembered getting sent through the kitchen and into a rear dining room.

 

The feeling of being stared and standing out in a crowd, while not unfamiliar, was more intense and disturbing than she had ever experienced.

“I vowed after leaving college I would never go back to Utah,” she said, and apart from one more basketball game, she kept her word.

On May 18, Jackson, drove 22 miles from her Duluth home to seek help from the people who represent the faith that once shunned her. At the Atlanta History Center, she sought out Mormon genealogical experts to discover more about her own lineage.

Family conference flier.

The conference featured seminars on using indexing and the “genealogical proof standard” in doing ancestral research.

Jackson was among hundreds of African-Americans who attended Atlanta’s Family History Conference, which emphasized African-American research. The event represented an ongoing reconciliation between African-Americans and the Church of Latter Day Saints through a common ground valued by both: family research.

Throughout much of the church’s history, Mormons considered African-Americans inferior to whites. In the mid-19th century Mormon leader Brigham Young said black people were marked by the “Curse of Cain.” It wasn’t until 1978—the year after Jackson’s visit—that the church reversed bans on African-Americans taking part in temple ceremonies and black men entering the Mormon priesthood.

But the fallout from that historical antipathy remains. In 2012 presidential election, Republican Mitt Romney, a white Mormon, failed to capitalize on black voter discontent with a fledgling economy. He garnered a mere single-digit share of the African-American vote against Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president.

Genealogy creates a confluence for the two historically disparate groups. Mormons have a hieratic obsession with ancestral research born out of the church’s teachings and religious ceremonies, intended to bind families together for eternity. This drive has led the church to establish one of the world’s largest systems for collecting genealogical records.

Saturday’s Family History Conference was sponsored by 13 businesses and organizations, including the Atlanta Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; Family Search, the church’s own non-profit genealogical research service; and Ancestry.com, a Provo, Utah-based for-profit company founded and run by Mormons.

African-Americans who seek their lineages face distinct challenges. These sleuths, because of slavery, often must find ancestors without surnames belonging to families ripped apart by auctions. Records are often scattered with few easy-to-find links. The interest in this work swelled after the publication of “Roots,” by Alex Haley in 1976 and continues through current media such as “Finding Your Roots,” the PBS series starring historian Henry Louis Gates.

African American visitors attend the Family History Conference at the Atlanta History Center

African American visitors attend the Family History Conference at the Atlanta History Center to learn techniques for searching for ancestral records.

On Saturday, FamilySearch announced a new tool that will help African-American family historians, especially African-Americans: the digitization of genealogical records, including Oakland Cemetery and its African-American section, as well as the 1896 census.

“I am tremendously appreciative of what they [Mormon genealogists] have done,” said Rhonda Barrow, who has researched her African-American ancestors and Caribbean roots. “Without them I would not know what I know about my family.”

Barrow, who is not Mormon, said the day she walked into a Family History Center in 1996, she found records of two ancestors. Since then she has found multiple documents related to her people in Barbados, St. Martins and Guyana dating back to 1820.

“What they (the Mormons) have done for genealogy is extraordinary,” said Barrow, volunteer public relations chairperson for the metro Atlanta chapter of the Afro-American Historical and Genealogy Society. “I can’t afford to pay for these searches of information and they make it so you don’t have to.

A FamilySearch seminar Saturday focused on how to use the “genealogical proof standard,” the minimum steps to conduct credible ancestral research, on African-American families.

The speaker, FamilySearch manager James Ison, presented a case study on the identity of John Percival Parker’s father. Parker was an abolitionist, inventor and former slave who helped rescue more than 1,000 other slaves through the underground resistance movement.

James Ison of FamilySearch leads a seminar on using the "genealogical proof standard" to research the parentage of African American slaves.

James Ison of FamilySearch leads a seminar on using the “genealogical proof standard” to research the parentage of African American slaves.

Parker’s mother was a slave. His father was white.

The search for the father initially zeroed in on a slave owner, also named Parker, who, according to his will, fathered a son through a slave. Census records suggested the boy had been born the same year as John Percival Parker. However, Ison presented a counter theory that the two were not connected, and Parker had merely chosen to name himself after an abolitionist politician.

Afterwards, Ison said it was not unusual for Mormons to aid African-Americans’ genealogical research.

“We help every ethnicity in the world,” he said. “Everyone shares a love of family … Families are eternal.”

He acknowledged the difficulties in researching African-American lineages.

“Before Emancipation, enslaved people had only one name in records. It was John or Bill,” Ison said. “Before 1865, we might have been brothers who got sold to different owners. After 1865, I might have taken the name Ison and you Smith and we might have lived 100 miles away from each other and never known where the other was.”

But that’s no reason to give up, Ison said.

“You need to persevere and find people in genealogical societies who can help you and find people doing similar research in some of the same places where you are doing research,” said Ison. “Learn from others who have been successful.”

His words hit home with Jackson.

“That’s the reality for us. That’s the way it is, nine times out of ten you don’t find anything but you get close,” she said. “But you learn to celebrate the small things until you get that big break.”

A decade ago, Jackson said she made a completely unexpected discovery through Ancestry.com—about her current family. Race and ethnicity aside, this news was a bombshell, and she doubts she would have found it elsewhere.

“I found out I had a brother and sister,” she said. “My dad and mom and never told me he had been married before He carried their photograph along with ours. He did support them.”

“I don’t know why he never told me.”

For more information on FamilySearch, a free service for all family genealogists, contact https://familysearch.org/

Ben Smith can be reached at benzmyth@gmail.com

 

About Michelle Hiskey

Michelle Hiskey is a freelance writer and writing coach based in Decatur, and her day job is senior editor on Emory University's development communications team. Michelle worked at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution for 22 years as a sports reporter, columnist and Sunday feature writer, and her stories of recovery and redemption bridge unexpected places and people across Atlanta. She lives in Decatur with her husband Ben Smith, also a journalist, and their two awesome daughters. She can be reached at michelle.hiskey@gmail.com.
This entry was posted in Atlanta, Ben Smith, Inspiration, Michelle Hiskey, Saporta, Transformation and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
84 comments
Mr_Commander
Mr_Commander

Greetings Ben Smith,

Your recent report "Mormons, African-Americans Reconcile to Seek Roots" is in tune with my recently published book which was in-part facilitated by the research tools of Family Search. Below is a brief synopsis of the book and a cover image. Thanks for reporting about the Atlanta History Center.

BOOK SYNOPSIS:
Utilizing genealogy research techniques, the author (Mr. James H. Commander) reveals some history of an African-American family who went from a small mining town of "Black Belt" Alabama to work with W.E.B. Dubois, A. Philip Randolph, and others to become the presidents and leaders of the N.A.A.C.P, labor groups, churches, and the largest black migration settlement house in the Great Depression. Available on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Love-Our-Roots-Freedom-Change/dp/0989564916/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372190535&sr=1-1&keywords=Love+At+our+Roots

Mr_Commander
Mr_Commander

Greetings Ben Smith, Your recent report "Mormons, African-Americans Reconcile to Seek Roots" is in tune with my recently published book which was in-part facilitated by the research tools of Family Search. Below is a brief synopsis of the book and a cover image. Thanks for reporting about the Atlanta History Center. BOOK SYNOPSIS: Utilizing genealogy research techniques, the author (Mr. James H. Commander) reveals some history of an African-American family who went from a small mining town of "Black Belt" Alabama to work with W.E.B. Dubois, A. Philip Randolph, and others to become the presidents and leaders of the N.A.A.C.P, labor groups, churches, and the largest black migration settlement house in the Great Depression. Available on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Love-Our-Roots-Freedom-Change/dp/0989564916/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372190535&sr=1-1&keywords=Love+At+our+Roots

RaymondSwenson
RaymondSwenson

Robert I am not "denying" Mormon history, I am telling you what that history IS.Just so you understand, Mormon history did NOT include segregated "whites only" churches as was the case until recently for some Evangelical denominations. Utah was on the side of the Union during the Civil War. Utah did not have Jim Crow laws nor was the the KKK an active part of its politics ad it wad in the South. There was no lynching in Utah of minority people as happened in the South. There was no school segregation.The old Mormon discrimination only affected blacks who had chosen to be baptozed.in the Mormon Church. It had no effect on a black Baptist or Catholic. And there was no institutional discrimination against the other minorities who were routinely discriminated against in many other states. Mormons recruited Asians, Polynesians, Americsn Indians and Hispanics.

RaymondSwenson
RaymondSwenson

Robert I am not "denying" Mormon history, I am telling you what that history IS.Just so you understand, Mormon history did NOT include segregated "whites only" churches as was the case until recently for some Evangelical denominations. Utah was on the side of the Union during the Civil War. Utah did not have Jim Crow laws nor was the the KKK an active part of its politics ad it wad in the South. There was no lynching in Utah of minority people as happened in the South. There was no school segregation.The old Mormon discrimination only affected blacks who had chosen to be baptozed.in the Mormon Church. It had no effect on a black Baptist or Catholic. And there was no institutional discrimination against the other minorities who were routinely discriminated against in many other states. Mormons recruited Asians, Polynesians, Americsn Indians and Hispanics.

RobertHarris2
RobertHarris2

I find it somewhat incredible that Mormons deny their church history.  One only has to read the writings and teachings of Brigham Young to conclude that African-Americans were not 'equal' to whites. The church should be commended for its turnaround about the place of blacks in the human spectrum.

RobertHarris2
RobertHarris2

I find it somewhat incredible that Mormons deny their church history.  One only has to read the writings and teachings of Brigham Young to conclude that African-Americans were not 'equal' to whites. The church should be commended for its turnaround about the place of blacks in the human spectrum.

DanielDinnell
DanielDinnell

RobertHarris2 - - - Brigham Young was not the only member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . .  There is a lot of folklore and misinformation about black members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taught that blacks are 'inferior' in any way, shape, or form to people of other races.    When it was a very unpopular concept, Joseph Smith (1st President/prophet of the Church) said in 1842,  "I have advised slaveholders to bring their slaves into a free country and set them free--educate them--and give them equal rights." (December 16, 1833), Joseph Smith, Jr. dictated a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants stating that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage to another."

Converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gathered in Missouri.  They were unwelcome, not so much because of their religion, but because they were not sympathetic to slavery.  The locals perceived, and with good reason, that the “Mormon” influx could decide whether or not Missouri would enter the Union as a slave state.  Intent on driving the newcomers out, mobs gathered, houses and barns were set afire and crops were destroyed.  When the Mormons defended themselves they were accused of being the aggressors and the governor issued a declaration that “the Mormons were to be driven from the state or exterminated.

The first black person was baptized two years after the Church’s founding in 1830, and Mormons started to ordain black men into the priesthood the first one in 1836, even to the office of Seventy.  Under the direction of Brigham Young, a ban on priesthood ordinations occurred generally between 1848 and 1978. 
The church, though, has never prohibited black men and women from joining, and black members remained with the church throughout the priesthood ban.   There you have it. Mormons don't know why the restriction existed, but it doesn't now. Why was Moses directed to have the priesthood restricted to Aaron and his sons in the Old Testament, with only the tribe of Levi assisting them, and without extending the priesthood to any other tribes (see Exodus 28, Leviticus 8, and Numbers 1)? We don't know the answer to that either. When the Savior initially refuses to bless the Canaanite woman because his mission is to the Jews and not the Gentiles 

DanielDinnell
DanielDinnell

RobertHarris2 - - - Brigham Young was not the only member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . .  There is a lot of folklore and misinformation about black members of http://www.lds.org/.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taught that blacks are 'inferior' in any way, shape, or form to people of other races.    When it was a very unpopular concept, Joseph Smith (1st President/prophet of the Church) said in 1842,  "I have advised slaveholders to bring their slaves into a free country and set them free--educate them--and give them equal rights." (December 16, 1833), Joseph Smith, Jr. dictated a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants stating that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage to another." Converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gathered in Missouri.  They were unwelcome, not so much because of their religion, but because they were not sympathetic to slavery.  The locals perceived, and with good reason, that the “Mormon” influx could decide whether or not Missouri would enter the Union as a slave state.  Intent on driving the newcomers out, mobs gathered, houses and barns were set afire and crops were destroyed.  When the Mormons defended themselves they were accused of being the aggressors and the governor issued a declaration that “the Mormons were to be driven from the state or exterminated. The first black person was baptized two years after the Church’s founding in 1830, and Mormons started to ordain black men into the priesthood the first one in 1836, even to the office of Seventy.

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

@DanielDinnell

Daniel,

You posted this:  "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taught that blacks are 'inferior' in any way, shape, or form to people of other races."  

That's a lie.  The LDS church HAS said Blacks are inferior, using that exact word.

Here is what the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whom you regard as God's one true prophet on earth) said in 1935 (emphasis mine):

“Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an INFERIOR race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.... they have been made to feel their INFERIORITY and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.”


- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101, 1935; 
So please, tell us how that does not say Blacks are INFERIOR.


JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

DanielDinnell Daniel, You posted this:  "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taught that blacks are 'inferior' in any way, shape, or form to people of other races."   That's a lie.  The LDS church HAS said Blacks are inferior, using that exact word. Here is what the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whom you regard as God's one true prophet on earth) said in 1935 (emphasis mine): “Not only was Cain called to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an INFERIOR race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.... they have been made to feel their INFERIORITY and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.” - Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101, 1935;  So please, tell us how that does not say Blacks are INFERIOR.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

Also, I read the article and the posts at the Steve Bloor site.  I responded there to the incorrect information.  Steve gets things wrong.  Go there and see my posts (assuming they approve them.  Thy are in pending status awaiting approval.)

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

@JustineHarrison @DwightRogers @DanielDinnell 

I don't  know whether Steve Bloor is a former Mormon bishop or not.  Maybe he is.  However, it is not unusual for people to claim "former' status as a Mormon or even a Mormon leader when they never were.  They do this in an effort to gain credibility.  They claim to be "insiders" and to know what really goes on in the Mormon church.  Usually they are not insiders and they don't know or understand Mormon history very well. 

Additionally, so what if he was a Mormon Bishop. Judas was an Apostle of Jesus Christ but he still betrayed Christ.  That doesn't make Christianity false.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

@JustineHarrison@HarryStamper@DwightRogers@DanielDinnell 

Joseph Smith Said:

"...I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . "
(History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409)

Jesus taught to his Apostles that they would do greater works than he did:Jesus said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” (John 14:12)

So, Joseph Smith was right.  His accomplishments fulfill the prophecy of Jesus.

 

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

You say “At least one of his wives sued for divorce based on cruel and inhumane treatment.”

Only one?I guess his other wives liked him enough to stay with him.It is well know that one of Brigham Young’s wives left the Church and became a critic. Her version of Mormonism is clearly tainted by her biases.She clearly had a vendetta against the Church. One would do better to read and study more reasonable sources of information to get an accurate picture of Mormon history.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

You say “Many believe he was responsbile for the Mountain Meadows massacre.”

There is substantial evidence neither Brigham Young nor any other church leader ever ordered the Mountain Meadow Massacre.Available evidence from first hand sources indicates that Brigham Young tried to prevent the tragedy from occurring.Authors who are critical of the church take diary entries and other evidence out of context to make it look like high Church leaders, particularly Brigham Young, ordered and/or condoned this atrocious act.But the evidence does not support that conclusion.Most of their arguments are a re-hash of anti-Mormon propaganda from the time period.For instance, Will Bagley's “Blood of the Prophets” interprets an alleged conversation between Brigham Young and some Indians as proof of a planned attack.However, as pointed out by attorney Robert Crockett, the conversation was actually about an effort to enlist the help of the Indians to slow down the approach of Johnson’s Army and had nothing to do with the immigrant party in Southern Utah.(Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 199–254)

In 1857 an adulterous federal judge told lies to Congress after being kicked off the bench in Salt Lake City, and the US government sent one-third of the entire Union army to Utah to put down a supposed non-existent “rebellion” by the Mormons.In the midst of this charged atmosphere a company of travelers in southern Utah several days journey away from Salt Lake and Church headquarters were joined by some ruffians who were bragging about how they had raped and murdered Mormons in Missouri.The California-bound wagon train was attacked by a group of Indians and Mormons and most of them were killed.

Judge Cradlebaugh went to Washington with accounts of the many “depravities” existing among the Saints.However, the judge was so discredited in time that even the non-Mormons called for his removal.Cradlebaugh blamed the massacre at Mountain Meadows as ordered from Church headquarters.Some believed it and some believe it now according to two recent so called “histories.” But even the non-Mormon prosecutor, Sumner Howard, at John D. Lee’s second trial dismissed involvement of church leaders.

James Holton Haslam acted as a messenger/courier between Brigham Young and the area in Southern Utah.Haslam carried messages to Southern Utah intended to smooth over relations and prevent violence with instructions that "the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants."After reading a message warning of impending trouble Brigham Young asked Brother Haslam “if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime.”President Young “said that ‘the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them.’ He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.” (Improvement Era (August 1951))

Eye witness accounts describe Brigham Young’s sorrow when he learned that his message had arrived too late to avoid violence.

After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Scholars generally recognize that there was a cover up at the local level.The dispute, often raised by critics of the LDS Church, is that the massacre was authorized or, at least condoned, by leaders of the Church in Salt Lake.However, the best evidence is that Brigham Young in Salt Lake counseled to let the travelers pass by without molestation and that he did not know of the details of the massacre until after the fact and was much grieved over it.

In the words of Mormon leader B.H. Roberts:

“The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.”(Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 4:156.)

In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

“One instance I will name here: A man. . . .He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre.Men have tried to lay that to President Young.I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it.He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?"The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction.I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth.Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.” (Wilford Woodruff, "The Law of Adoption," in Brian H. Stuy (editor), Collected Discourses: Delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others, 1868–1898, 5 vols., (Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987–1989), 4:72–73. [Discourse given on 8 April 1894.] )

Most historians agree with Juanita Brooks, who concluded that neither Brigham Young nor other Church leaders ordered the massacre “and would have prevented it if he could.”Brigham Young did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.(Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219)

Juanita Brooks, who served on the Utah Board ofState History for 28 years, was a longtime professor at the former Dixie StateCollege and became a well-known author. She is recognized, by scholarly consent, to be one of Utah and the Mormon Church's most eminent historians. Her totalhonesty, unwavering courage and perceptive interpretation of fact, set more stringent standards of scholarship for her fellow historians to emulate.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

@JustineHarrison@HarryStamper@DwightRogers@DanielDinnell

You say “Brigham Young was an abusive cruel man.  He was in arguably a horrible racist.”

Hardly!

Brigham Young is known for his fiery and blunt speeches which he used to motivate people towards change but he is also known for his kindness and sympathy to the downtrodden.

People who criticize Brigham Young would do well to be informed of the context of the times and to read his speeches in that light. In 1863, couplings between black women and white men would virtually always be a relationship with few rights for the black woman and all the power with the man.Black women in relationships with white men were often forced into sexual activity. Her children would have been automatic slaves if she was a slave, and the men under no legal responsibility to provide for her or the children.

Brigham was far more worried about white men abusing their position of political and cultural superiority. This is not to say that Brigham did not share some ideas about the desirability of keeping races separate; virtually everyone of his era did. American ethnologists of the time taught that whites and blacks were separately created races, the mixture of which would corrupt both. (Brigham Young, "The Persecutions of the Saints, etc.," (8 March 1863) Journal of Discourses 10:111.)]

But in the same speech Brigham Young condemns the whites for their treatment of blacks, and threatens punishment for white men who have what is likely forced intercourse with black women.Therefore, it is not fair to portray him as a ravening racist with no concern for the downtrodden. His fire and brimstone is all for the aggressor; his sympathy is for those who were mistreated.

 

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

@HarryStamper @JustineHarrison @DwightRogers @DanielDinnell

Harry,

Who said anything about crucifying anyone? 

And seriously, you want to compare Brigham Young to Jesus Christ?  (Of course Joseph Smith DID compare himself to Jesus:  "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” )

Brigham Young was an abusive cruel man.  He was in arguably a horrible racist. Many believe he was responsbile for the Mountain Meadows massacre.  At least one of his wives sued for divorce based on cruel and inhumane treatment.  And yet the LDS church continues to revere him.

And please look up the term "railing."  I have done here what people do here:  Posted my thinking.  If my comments bother you, I suggest you not read them. And no, I am not full of guilt or anger.  But you are of close free to think that if you want.

HarryStamper
HarryStamper

@JustineHarrison @DwightRogers @DanielDinnell  

If Brigham Young were alive today, would you crucify him?  This is the same logic the citizens of Israel used against Christ.  They put their fingers in their ears and claimed what an evil law breaking man He was.  Who spends their time railing against another religion on blogs?  Miserable people full of guilt and anger desiring to make others miserable.  Read 3 talks by BY or Joseph Smith and see if there is any good in them...look for it....it's very plentiful.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

@JustineHarrison@DwightRogers@DanielDinnell

No, you are missing the point entirely.  I already quoted Joseph Smith for you wherein he said"...a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." (Joseph Smith Jr., DHC 5:265; Teachings p 368)

 I think I already made this clear but I wonder if you read it.  J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency answeres the question quite clearly as shown here:


"And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth-

"And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:2-5)

In an article written by Elder J Reuben Clark entitled "When are Church Leader's Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?", the following counsel is given:

"The question is, how shall we know when the things they have spoken were said as they were 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost?'

"I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto, so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we ourselves are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'

"In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak." (Church News 31,July 1954)

Elder Clark further counsels: "...even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' when he addresses the people.This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.'

"How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost'?The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost'; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest." (Church News 31 July, 1954)

By the power of the spirit, the body of faithful Church members will be able to discern true doctrine from error.A teaching given by some of the brethren of the Church says that where there is disagreement among the brethren, go with the majority.It has been my experience that the vast majority of active Church members as well as the majority of the leading brethren believe that evolution is false.

The crowning principle is that all truth must be understood by the power of the Spirit.Even plain passages in the canonized scripture can be misunderstood and even twisted by those who have not the spirit.Conversely, statements spoken or written by faithful members of the Church and, particularly the Brethren, can be scripture to us even when it is not officially published by the Church.

 

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

@DwightRogers @JustineHarrison @DanielDinnell 

"Brigham Young can say whatever he wants..."

You're missing the point entirely, Dwight.

1.  The man was (and still is revered as) the ONE MAN ON EARTH WHO IN HIS TIME WAS AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK FOR GOD according to your church.

2.  The man was a hideous biggot.  And he said things during his tenure that were hideously cruel toward Blacks.


No prophet does that.  No way.



JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

@DwightRogers @JustineHarrison @HarryStamper @DanielDinnell 

Dwight said (confidently):  "There is no problem here."  

Well, there are problems.  Huge ones.  And they transcend the Mormon and Blacks issue.  But feel free to live in denial, Dwight.

For anyone truly interested in objective information instead of apologetics, please visit:


www.mormonthink.com


www.20truths.info


Is it any wonder that according to Elder Jensen of the LDS church, members are "leaving in droves," and at a rate greater than any time since the mass 19th century exodus in Kirtland, Ohio?



DwightRogers
DwightRogers

@JustineHarrison @DwightRogers @DanielDinnell 

I will say it to you again.  Brigham Young can say whatever he wants.  It is recorded by hand by stenographers and published in the Journal of Discourses.  The written account published in the JD is not vetted and approved by the Church.  There is no guarantee that it was recorded correctly.  It is not given out to the Church as binding. Brother Brigham can claim that his speech is scripture but until it is canonized or published to the Church in official material it is not binding upon the Saints.   

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

You say "He pretended to be speaking for God"

No. This is what I explained to you already but you didn't listen. He published his own book with his own viewpoints. It was not published by the Church. Prophets and Apostles have the same right everyone else has which is that they can publish their own views and their own interpretations.When God wants something given to the people he gives it by revelation and it is published to the Church in official outlets, not in private publications. Sorry, there is no problem here. No matter how much you try to take one statement and rewrite history as if that statement was published by the  Church, it doesn't make it so

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

@JustineHarrison@HarryStamper@DanielDinnell 

You say "He pretended to be speaking for God"

No. This is what I explained to you already but you didn't listen. He published his own book with his own viewpoints. It was not published by the Church. Prophets and Apostles have the same right everyone else has which is that they can publish their own views and their own interpretations.When God wants something given to the people he gives it by revelation and it is published to the Church in official outlets, not in private publications. Sorry, there is no problem here. No matter how much you try to take one statement and rewrite history as if that statement was published by the  Church, it doesn't make it so

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

@DwightRogers @JustineHarrison @DanielDinnell


LOL, Dwight.  I see.  So your prophets' words aren't binding if they aren't in the scriptures.  


But read this statement by Brigham Young.  So is it scripture when he speaks, or not?  Was this statement a lie?

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture." (Journal of Discourses, 13:95)

And of course this was the very same Brigham Young who taught this:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild andseemingly 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 put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses,  7:290)


JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

@HarryStamper @JustineHarrison @DanielDinnell 

Harry,   

Last I checked, you Mormons sustain your "apostles" as "prophets, seers and revelators."  Do I have that wrong?  As an apostle (no matter how "young"), was he not sustained as a prophet?


And I could not care less what he said "later in life."  The man was a prophet at the time.  He pretended to be speaking for God.  So either he was not a prophet, or the Mormon god thought Blacks were inferior.



HarryStamper
HarryStamper

@JustineHarrison@DanielDinnell  You wrote in your response..."That's a lie.  The LDS church HAS said Blacks are inferior, using that exact word."  The Church never has in any official document, scripture or publication.  You quote Joseph Fielding Smith, President of the LDS Church as your source.  Your incorrect.  The article was written in 1931, he was a young Apostle at that time, not President.  He wrote the article in a magazine (later put in that book) for the Utah Genealogical Society.  He claimed he was solely responsible for those words and that they do not represent the Church position.  He better than anyone KNEW he could not speak for the Church at large.  As I quoted in an earlier post he clearly taught much later in his life that the Church does not teach blacks are inferior and went out of his way to explain.

Your attempts to explain Mormon doctrine are infantile.  You appear foolish and your hostility clouds any sound reasoning.  You sound like a Ford dealer on the weekend attempting to diminish the Chevrolet dealer across the street.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

@JustineHarrison@DanielDinnell

Show me in an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints where it is taught that Blacks are inferior.Show me not from a private publication but in the LDS scriptures or other official publication or teaching published by the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taught that prophets always speak for the Lord every time they speak.Rather, the LDS church recognizes that there are times when the prophet is speaking for the Lord and other times that he is speaking his own viewpoint or opinion.For example, Joseph Smith said "...a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." (Joseph Smith Jr., DHC 5:265; Teachings p 368)

Those teachings that are official Church doctrine are reviewed and approved by Church leadership and are published as such in official Church manuals and/or periodicals. Any leader in the Church has the right to publish his own views and interpretations just as does any U.S Citizen.I don’t believe The Way to Perfection is a Church publication.Critics of the Church often engage in selectivism, cherry picking more obscure statements from private publications while ignoring the repeated official teachings of the Church.This is not good scholarship or even very honest.

Church leaders have repeatedly said that when they are speaking for the Lord they will publish this in official pronouncements.At other times, Church leaders are free to express their private views the same as any other individual.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

Also, I read the article and the posts at the Steve Bloor site.  I responded there to the incorrect information.  Steve gets things wrong.  Go there and see my posts (assuming they approve them.  Thy are in pending status awaiting approval.)

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

JustineHarrison DwightRogers DanielDinnell  I don't  know whether Steve Bloor is a former Mormon bishop or not.  Maybe he is.  However, it is not unusual for people to claim "former' status as a Mormon or even a Mormon leader when they never were.  They do this in an effort to gain credibility.  They claim to be "insiders" and to know what really goes on in the Mormon church.  Usually they are not insiders and they don't know or understand Mormon history very well.  Additionally, so what if he was a Mormon Bishop. Judas was an Apostle of Jesus Christ but he still betrayed Christ.  That doesn't make Christianity false.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

JustineHarrisonHarryStamperDwightRogersDanielDinnell  Joseph Smith Said: "...I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409) Jesus taught to his Apostles that they would do greater works than he did:Jesus said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” (John 14:12) So, Joseph Smith was right.  His accomplishments fulfill the prophecy of Jesus.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

You say “At least one of his wives sued for divorce based on cruel and inhumane treatment.” Only one?I guess his other wives liked him enough to stay with him.It is well know that one of Brigham Young’s wives left the Church and became a critic. Her version of Mormonism is clearly tainted by her biases.She clearly had a vendetta against the Church. One would do better to read and study more reasonable sources of information to get an accurate picture of Mormon history.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

You say “Many believe he was responsbile for the Mountain Meadows massacre.” There is substantial evidence neither Brigham Young nor any other church leader ever ordered the Mountain Meadow Massacre.Available evidence from first hand sources indicates that Brigham Young tried to prevent the tragedy from occurring.Authors who are critical of the church take diary entries and other evidence out of context to make it look like high Church leaders, particularly Brigham Young, ordered and/or condoned this atrocious act.But the evidence does not support that conclusion.Most of their arguments are a re-hash of anti-Mormon propaganda from the time period.For instance, Will Bagley's “Blood of the Prophets” interprets an alleged conversation between Brigham Young and some Indians as proof of a planned attack.However, as pointed out by attorney Robert Crockett, the conversation was actually about an effort to enlist the help of the Indians to slow down the approach of Johnson’s Army and had nothing to do with the immigrant party in Southern Utah.(Robert D. Crockett, "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 199–254) In 1857 an adulterous federal judge told lies to Congress after being kicked off the bench in Salt Lake City, and the US government sent one-third of the entire Union army to Utah to put down a supposed non-existent “rebellion” by the Mormons.In the midst of this charged atmosphere a company of travelers in southern Utah several days journey away from Salt Lake and Church headquarters were joined by some ruffians who were bragging about how they had raped and murdered Mormons in Missouri.The California-bound wagon train was attacked by a group of Indians and Mormons and most of them were killed. Judge Cradlebaugh went to Washington with accounts of the many “depravities” existing among the Saints.However, the judge was so discredited in time that even the non-Mormons called for his removal.Cradlebaugh blamed the massacre at Mountain Meadows as ordered from Church headquarters.Some believed it and some believe it now according to two recent so called “histories.” But even the non-Mormon prosecutor, Sumner Howard, at John D. Lee’s second trial dismissed involvement of church leaders. James Holton Haslam acted as a messenger/courier between Brigham Young and the area in Southern Utah.Haslam carried messages to Southern Utah intended to smooth over relations and prevent violence with instructions that "the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants."After reading a message warning of impending trouble Brigham Young asked Brother Haslam “if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime.”President Young “said that ‘the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them.’ He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.” (Improvement Era (August 1951)) Eye witness accounts describe Brigham Young’s sorrow when he learned that his message had arrived too late to avoid violence. After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War. Scholars generally recognize that there was a cover up at the local level.The dispute, often raised by critics of the LDS Church, is that the massacre was authorized or, at least condoned, by leaders of the Church in Salt Lake.However, the best evidence is that Brigham Young in Salt Lake counseled to let the travelers pass by without molestation and that he did not know of the details of the massacre until after the fact and was much grieved over it. In the words of Mormon leader B.H. Roberts: “The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.”(Brigham H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 4:156.) In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement: “One instance I will name here: A man. . . .He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre.Men have tried to lay that to President Young.I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it.He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?"The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction.I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth.Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.” (Wilford Woodruff, "The Law of Adoption," in Brian H. Stuy (editor), Collected Discourses: Delivered by Wilford Woodruff, his two counselors, the twelve apostles, and others, 1868–1898, 5 vols., (Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987–1989), 4:72–73. [Discourse given on 8 April 1894.] ) Most historians agree with Juanita Brooks, who concluded that neither Brigham Young nor other Church leaders ordered the massacre “and would have prevented it if he could.”Brigham Young did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.(Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219) Juanita Brooks, who served on the Utah Board ofState History for 28 years, was a longtime professor at the former Dixie StateCollege and became a well-known author. She is recognized, by scholarly consent, to be one of Utah and the Mormon Church's most eminent historians. Her totalhonesty, unwavering courage and perceptive interpretation of fact, set more stringent standards of scholarship for her fellow historians to emulate.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

JustineHarrisonHarryStamperDwightRogersDanielDinnell You say “Brigham Young was an abusive cruel man.  He was in arguably a horrible racist.” Hardly! Brigham Young is known for his fiery and blunt speeches which he used to motivate people towards change but he is also known for his kindness and sympathy to the downtrodden. People who criticize Brigham Young would do well to be informed of the context of the times and to read his speeches in that light. In 1863, couplings between black women and white men would virtually always be a relationship with few rights for the black woman and all the power with the man.Black women in relationships with white men were often forced into sexual activity. Her children would have been automatic slaves if she was a slave, and the men under no legal responsibility to provide for her or the children. Brigham was far more worried about white men abusing their position of political and cultural superiority. This is not to say that Brigham did not share some ideas about the desirability of keeping races separate; virtually everyone of his era did. American ethnologists of the time taught that whites and blacks were separately created races, the mixture of which would corrupt both. (Brigham Young, "The Persecutions of the Saints, etc.," (8 March 1863) http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/10/25#111.)] But in the same speech Brigham Young condemns the whites for their treatment of blacks, and threatens punishment for white men who have what is likely forced intercourse with black women.Therefore, it is not fair to portray him as a ravening racist with no concern for the downtrodden. His fire and brimstone is all for the aggressor; his sympathy is for those who were mistreated.

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

HarryStamper JustineHarrison DwightRogers DanielDinnell Harry, Who said anything about crucifying anyone?  And seriously, you want to compare Brigham Young to Jesus Christ?  (Of course Joseph Smith DID compare himself to Jesus:  "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” ) Brigham Young was an abusive cruel man.  He was in arguably a horrible racist. Many believe he was responsbile for the Mountain Meadows massacre.  At least one of his wives sued for divorce based on cruel and inhumane treatment.  And yet the LDS church continues to revere him. And please look up the term "railing."  I have done here what people do here:  Posted my thinking.  If my comments bother you, I suggest you not read them. And no, I am not full of guilt or anger.  But you are of close free to think that if you want.

HarryStamper
HarryStamper

JustineHarrison DwightRogers DanielDinnell   If Brigham Young were alive today, would you crucify him?  This is the same logic the citizens of Israel used against Christ.  They put their fingers in their ears and claimed what an evil law breaking man He was.  Who spends their time railing against another religion on blogs?  Miserable people full of guilt and anger desiring to make others miserable.  Read 3 talks by BY or Joseph Smith and see if there is any good in them...look for it....it's very plentiful.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

JustineHarrisonDwightRogersDanielDinnell No, you are missing the point entirely.  I already quoted Joseph Smith for you wherein he said"...a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." (Joseph Smith Jr., DHC 5:265; Teachings p 368)  I think I already made this clear but I wonder if you read it.  J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency answeres the question quite clearly as shown here: "And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth- "And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:2-5) In an article written by Elder J Reuben Clark entitled "When are Church Leader's Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?", the following counsel is given: "The question is, how shall we know when the things they have spoken were said as they were 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost?' "I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto, so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we ourselves are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' "In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak." (Church News 31,July 1954) Elder Clark further counsels: "...even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' when he addresses the people.This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' "How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost'?The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost'; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest." (Church News 31 July, 1954) By the power of the spirit, the body of faithful Church members will be able to discern true doctrine from error.A teaching given by some of the brethren of the Church says that where there is disagreement among the brethren, go with the majority.It has been my experience that the vast majority of active Church members as well as the majority of the leading brethren believe that evolution is false. The crowning principle is that all truth must be understood by the power of the Spirit.Even plain passages in the canonized scripture can be misunderstood and even twisted by those who have not the spirit.Conversely, statements spoken or written by faithful members of the Church and, particularly the Brethren, can be scripture to us even when it is not officially published by the Church.

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

DwightRogers JustineHarrison DanielDinnell  "Brigham Young can say whatever he wants..." You're missing the point entirely, Dwight. 1.  The man was (and still is revered as) the ONE MAN ON EARTH WHO IN HIS TIME WAS AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK FOR GOD according to your church. 2.  The man was a hideous biggot.  And he said things during his tenure that were hideously cruel toward Blacks. No prophet does that.  No way.

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

DwightRogers JustineHarrison HarryStamper DanielDinnell  Dwight said (confidently):  "There is no problem here."   Well, there are problems.  Huge ones.  And they transcend the Mormon and Blacks issue.  But feel free to live in denial, Dwight. For anyone truly interested in objective information instead of apologetics, please visit: www.mormonthink.com www.20truths.info Is it any wonder that according to Elder Jensen of the LDS church, members are "leaving in droves," and at a rate greater than any time since the mass 19th century exodus in Kirtland, Ohio?

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

JustineHarrison DwightRogers DanielDinnell  I will say it to you again.  Brigham Young can say whatever he wants.  It is recorded by hand by stenographers and published in the Journal of Discourses.  The written account published in the JD is not vetted and approved by the Church.  There is no guarantee that it was recorded correctly.  It is not given out to the Church as binding. Brother Brigham can claim that his speech is scripture but until it is canonized or published to the Church in official material it is not binding upon the Saints.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

You say "He pretended to be speaking for God" No. This is what I explained to you already but you didn't listen. He published his own book with his own viewpoints. It was not published by the Church. Prophets and Apostles have the same right everyone else has which is that they can publish their own views and their own interpretations.When God wants something given to the people he gives it by revelation and it is published to the Church in official outlets, not in private publications. Sorry, there is no problem here. No matter how much you try to take one statement and rewrite history as if that statement was published by the  Church, it doesn't make it so

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

JustineHarrisonHarryStamperDanielDinnell  You say "He pretended to be speaking for God" No. This is what I explained to you already but you didn't listen. He published his own book with his own viewpoints. It was not published by the Church. Prophets and Apostles have the same right everyone else has which is that they can publish their own views and their own interpretations.When God wants something given to the people he gives it by revelation and it is published to the Church in official outlets, not in private publications. Sorry, there is no problem here. No matter how much you try to take one statement and rewrite history as if that statement was published by the  Church, it doesn't make it so

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

DwightRogers JustineHarrison DanielDinnell LOL, Dwight.  I see.  So your prophets' words aren't binding if they aren't in the scriptures.   But read this statement by Brigham Young.  So is it scripture when he speaks, or not?  Was this statement a lie? "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture." (Journal of Discourses, 13:95) And of course this was the very same Brigham Young who taught this: You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild andseemingly 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 put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses,  7:290)

JustineHarrison
JustineHarrison

HarryStamper JustineHarrison DanielDinnell  Harry,    Last I checked, you Mormons sustain your "apostles" as "prophets, seers and revelators."  Do I have that wrong?  As an apostle (no matter how "young"), was he not sustained as a prophet? And I could not care less what he said "later in life."  The man was a prophet at the time.  He pretended to be speaking for God.  So either he was not a prophet, or the Mormon god thought Blacks were inferior.

HarryStamper
HarryStamper

JustineHarrisonDanielDinnell  You wrote in your response..."That's a lie.  The LDS church HAS said Blacks are inferior, using that exact word."  The Church never has in any official document, scripture or publication.  You quote Joseph Fielding Smith, President of the LDS Church as your source.  Your incorrect.  The article was written in 1931, he was a young Apostle at that time, not President.  He wrote the article in a magazine (later put in that book) for the Utah Genealogical Society.  He claimed he was solely responsible for those words and that they do not represent the Church position.  He better than anyone KNEW he could not speak for the Church at large.  As I quoted in an earlier post he clearly taught much later in his life that the Church does not teach blacks are inferior and went out of his way to explain. Your attempts to explain Mormon doctrine are infantile.  You appear foolish and your hostility clouds any sound reasoning.  You sound like a Ford dealer on the weekend attempting to diminish the Chevrolet dealer across the street.

DwightRogers
DwightRogers

JustineHarrisonDanielDinnell Show me in an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints where it is taught that Blacks are inferior.Show me not from a private publication but in the LDS scriptures or other official publication or teaching published by the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never taught that prophets always speak for the Lord every time they speak.Rather, the LDS church recognizes that there are times when the prophet is speaking for the Lord and other times that he is speaking his own viewpoint or opinion.For example, Joseph Smith said "...a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." (Joseph Smith Jr., DHC 5:265; Teachings p 368) Those teachings that are official Church doctrine are reviewed and approved by Church leadership and are published as such in official Church manuals and/or periodicals. Any leader in the Church has the right to publish his own views and interpretations just as does any U.S Citizen.I don’t believe The Way to Perfection is a Church publication.Critics of the Church often engage in selectivism, cherry picking more obscure statements from private publications while ignoring the repeated official teachings of the Church.This is not good scholarship or even very honest. Church leaders have repeatedly said that when they are speaking for the Lord they will publish this in official pronouncements.At other times, Church leaders are free to express their private views the same as any other individual.