Deseret News | MormonTimes.com: Modern pioneer will always be linked to 1978 revelation

Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: Modern pioneer will always be linked to 1978 revelation

Great Quote | 5:39 a.m. May 1, 2008

It was wonderful to learn about Bro. Helvecio Martin of the Seventy's son. There is lots of good council for members of the LDS Church (and for anybody else)in this story. My favorite quote by Marcus was, "Now is the time for activity, not activism." Going out and actually DOING something to improve any situation, surely beats whining, and complaining, and pontificating, and talking it to death.

C.H. | 6:56 a.m. May 1, 2008

I enjoyed reding this article, and I will remember the story of the Martins for a long time.

When I lived in California, I had friends who were searching for information about which prophet said that the men of their race weren't allowed to hold the Priesthood. It became an obsession, and remains a puzzle to them; and no one has ever offered the answer to their question.

I like the attitude that Marcus Martins had about it, that it was just the way things were. What many people don't understand is that members of the church worldwide knew---long before it was given--- that the revelation would come some day. When it did, we rejoiced with those members who were blessed with the privilege of holding the priesthood after years of being deprived of that blessing. I think it made it more special to them than it was with many young men who don't understand the privilege they had to be ordained to the priesthood at age 12.

I wish it were possible to meet the Martins and extend my love to them. I wish them all the happiness they deserve.

Tom Karren | 8:03 a.m. May 1, 2008

I served a mission in Fortaleza Brazil (88-90) and Marcus' father Elder Helvecio Martins was my mission president. I learned a lot from him and greatly respect and admire his whole family. Thanks for including this piece about Marcus. He reminds me of his dad!

Comments continue below

Alex Pereira | 8:05 a.m. May 1, 2008

Iï¿½m from Rio de Janeiro. The Martins Family were a failtfhul members, same before the Revelation.

Revelation | 8:23 a.m. May 1, 2008

Or Realization? Think about it.

Anonymous | 8:29 a.m. May 1, 2008

So happy for the Martin family that everything worked out well for them. I always admire people who are willing to take risks and go against the flow. (Entering into a mixed marriage without the promise of a Celestial marriage was certainly a BIG risk at the time.)

I think this story also points out the fact that families can be happy and well-adjusted whether there is a Priesthood holder in the family or not--something that is often lost on many Church members.

Interesting | 9:11 a.m. May 1, 2008

I have long been impressed that in so many cases, those most directly and personally affected by the limitations on holding the priesthood seem to have had the least angst with the policy while those least directly affected--non-blacks, non-LDS--seem to have had, and continue to have, the largest issues and problems.

This is one evidence to me that some of the attempts to explain the policy by ascribing unfavorable attributes to the premortal lives of some persons have no validity.

It is a shame that so many felt and feel so compelled to explain something that is probably just inexplicable to mortal men. God's ways are not our ways and we often do not understand how or why He works the way he does.

The faithfulness of the Martins family is a strength to me as I face what are, by any and all comparison, trivial challenges to my own faith and understanding with one policy or another.

Interesting...but | 9:50 a.m. May 1, 2008

It must have taken a great deal of faith for both Marcus and Mirian. There is no question that their testimonies had to be very strong to transcend what they had to realize some were thinking or saying about them.

I wonder though why Marcus attributes the various "reasons" for the ban to what came across in the article as merely member speculation or opinion? Perhaps that helped him and his family through this time. But the reality is that reasons given like "fence sitting" and discouragement of interracial marriages came directly from the mouths of prophets and apostles of the Church. These were not LDS urban legends. I suppose we can still attribute those leader comments as mere opinion or speculation but I think there is a bit of whitewashing of the priesthood ban to pretend the reasoning came from anywhere other than top church leadership. I applaud this man and his family for their faith and dedication - but I cringe everytime I see sterilizing of the reality of the early church and it's doctrines and teachings. I also applaud appropriate change but the problem is that the Church never honestly addresses the issues that are eventually change.

Aloha from a Seasider | 10:31 a.m. May 1, 2008

Having been taught in class by Dr. Martins at BYU-Hawai`i and having heard him speak on a number of occasions in La`ie - he is a true Latter-Day Saint. A great man who has a great wife and outstanding children (and now a grand-child!!) [Congratulations, Grandpa!]... Thank you Martins family - for all the lives you have touched for good! Great article! Aloha

Valient | 11:02 a.m. May 1, 2008

It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith was the first prophet to ordain a black man to the priesthood. Some of Brigham Youngs comments could appear to be racist (from a 21st century perspective) however other comments from President Young and every other prophet down to Present Kimball, prophesied that the day would come that every worthy member would receive the blessing of the priesthood and the temple.

The idea that anyone was "not as valient" in the pre-mortal existance doesn't just extend to blacks, but are also sometimes ascribed to other converts as well.

My wife (a Utahan, convert at 17, blond, white, and a decendant of proment LDS pioneer families) was once told in a Sunday school class that those who were not "born into the covenent" were not as valient.

This did bother her a little, but many years later she was given a blessing by a General Authority (after a major accident) that because of her faithfulness in the premortal life she had been chosen to come down to her family and that through her trials, testimonies would strengthened and the power of the priesthood would be revealed through her experience. Who's not valient?

some people live in the past | 11:06 a.m. May 1, 2008

This is a great article. What many of us don't know how to do is to live in the present and prepared for the future. We just love to speculate, criticize, and judge past situations based upon our "ultra enlightened richeous present" eye. We hold so many grudges or bad feelings about the past which serve no purpose at all except to blind us as to what we can do today and what we should be doing to prepare for the challenges of tomorrow. We claim we study the past to try to "understand" but what many want to do is just hear someone else say they were wrong....it is just some sort of sick mental therapy. Many of us suffer perceived hardships due to: parents, bosses, occupations, leaders, etc. What good does it do me to hunt everyone down and glory in some "honest addressing of some past issue". Brother Martins is a great example of living within the present with faith in Christ, feeling his spirit and making the most of circumstances. I thank God everyday for the 1978 revelation to Spencer W Kimball. In the eternities, I'll understand the whole picture with out predjudice and agenda!

Lee | 11:19 a.m. May 1, 2008

Though I have read the Book of Mormon, I really didn't read anything in there about those of color being denied an office in the Church. The BOM mentions that God 'darkened thier skin" for rejecting God.I am not as familar with the D & C.Is it written in there about dark skinned people being denied the Priesthood?

the Real Issue | 12:20 p.m. May 1, 2008

As Marcus has demistrated the thing that is important is not the reasons why but what you do.

It does not matter how important you were before this life, it only matters what you do here with the time and trials you are given. That is it plain and simple.

Holding the priesthood or not it comes down to what you do with the time given you. Nothing else matters.

Heidi | 12:27 p.m. May 1, 2008

I remember meeting Elder Helvicio and Sister Martins shortly before his death. They are lovely people. I'm glad that Marcus Martins and his family were welcomed into their Utah Valley Ward. I'm sorry that those of non-European ethnic backgrounds are worried about coming to church in America with members of European ethnic backgrounds. Because they are welcomed warmly. A dear sister in our ward from Samoa said with happy surprise, "Wow! you treat me like I'm white." That hurt my feelings a little to hear that. I wish more people of Polynesian and Latin American backgrounds would assimilate with the rest of us. We need their wonderful personalities and friendship.
I think the priesthood thing dates back to Noah's son Ham who disrespected the priesthood. His posterity in ancient Egypt started their own false priesthood. But what's important is today when all worthy males can have the priviledge of holding the priesthood. The Earth has an interesting history, doesn't it?

To Lee | 12:33 p.m. May 1, 2008

Nowhere do the scriptures say priesthood blessings should or should not be extended based on skin color. I think it was the extension of personal prejudices held by certain leaders who interpreted certain scriptures in a way to justify those prejudices. Slavery in America was similarly justified through scripture. The problem is that once a Church leader proclaims something it is tough to overturn it even if some recognize it was personally or culturally driven rather than from God. That's why it took so long to finally change the policy. I think in their heart of hearts, very few member truly believe that practices like the priesthood ban and polygamy were genuinely revealed from God. But we kinda just have to go with it so as not to seem too overly critical of past church leaders. Good for people like the Martins who recognize men run much of the Church. For me, I kinda would have hoped God would have had more of a hand in his true church so that the PR guys were not tasked with cleaning up the past decisions of mortal men.

RE: Interesting...but | 9:50 | 12:55 p.m. May 1, 2008

Remember the difference between teachings and actual doctrines. And recall McConkie's very frank remarks about his own mistakes in this regard following the '78 revelation.

Larry | 1:13 p.m. May 1, 2008

This is a great article about Marcus's faith and testimony. I have also read his book, "Setting the Record Straight: Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood". The book offers much more insight and testimony of that which has been shared in this article.
I was blessed to have been one of Marcus's mission companions as we served in Campinas, Brasil together. He was a great missionary and spoke with conviction and bore powerful witness of his love for his Heavenly Father and for our Savior Jesus Christ.
Those of us that have met and talked with Marcus's parents have felt of their spirit and conviction. They were guided by the hand of the Lord in their choices, and through righteous living, have blessed their posterity. Their posterity blesses their name and their faithfulness.
Mirian faithfully waited for Marcus to finish his mission so they could be married. Marcus never doubted she would still be there. He only kept on working. They are wonderful people. The story of the Martins family is wonderful. I was blessed to have rubbed shoulders with him. He is my brother and I miss him very much. Maybe I'll have to take a trip to Hawaii soon.

We come to all sorts | 1:32 p.m. May 1, 2008

of realizations in this life. Religious people are not any different in this. If you read some of the past materials in the church you can see that Brigham Young thought there were men on the moon. We later learned the true nature of the moon. Just because people may be inspired in some areas of their lives does not mean they are inspired in all areas. People didn't used to even know many people of different races. What makes us think they would think of them as equal? When the world started changing and travel, media and lives became intertwined they learned. The realization came that we are not that different after all.

Ghost | 2:49 p.m. May 1, 2008

I agree with ï¿½We come to all sorts.ï¿½ We forget that our leaders are just men. They may be chosen of God and may be Prophets, Seers and Revelators but they are still fallible men. Sometimes our leaders in the past and present speak as men and sometimes they speak as mouth pieces of the Lord. If we stay with what they say in the scriptures, the Ensign, in conference and when they say ï¿½thus sayeth the Lord,ï¿½ we will know that it is coming from the Lord and not men. They have more light and knowledge than I do, but it is still up to the individual to gain their own testimony of each doctrine. Brother Martin is a great example and I am glad to learn more about him.

Anonymous | 3:00 p.m. May 1, 2008

Does the word "token" mean anything to anybody?

re:RE: Interesting...but@12:55 | 3:53 p.m. May 1, 2008

>>Remember the difference between teachings and actual doctrines.<<

Nonsense, there is no difference. You can follow the doctrines and disagree/disregard the latest subject matter "teachings," and I guarantee you will be sternly disciplined in the "court of love." Ask the all the academics who suffered for their views that didn't quite coincide with the "teachings."

Hopefully, this too will pass | 4:25 p.m. May 1, 2008

I know what you mean "intersting", but hopefully this attitude will change.

How do we tell? | 4:27 p.m. May 1, 2008

How do we actually know the difference between doctrines and simply the opinions of Church leaders? That's the question that I've never been able to figure out. Does anyone have a very simply answer?

If it's later discarded or proven to be false does it then become simply an opinion?

To Ghost | 5:10 p.m. May 1, 2008

I agree that Prophets and Apolstles speak at times through inspiration and other times as a man with as valid an opinion as you or I. So how do we know when they are speaking through inspiration? I think you are correct when indicating in scripture or when they say "thus sayeth the Lord." But conference talks and the Ensign is IMO going into the area of opinion. Many of the "reasons" for the priesthood ban or other subjects that we now squirm about and believe were definitely only opinion are found squarely in past conference talks and Church publications. So for us today, scripture and formal statements from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (like the family proclamation) can safely be considered messages from our leaders speaking through inspiration.

Practice v Doctrine | 5:17 p.m. May 1, 2008

I believe that all of the comments about the Priesthood ban are found in conference talks or church publications - therefore I am easily able to say they were only opinions of leaders or a practice and not doctrine. But, the doctrine of plural marriage was and is cannonized in the Doctrine and Covenants so we can safely consider it to be very different. The Manifesto indicated that members should obey the law of the land regarding marriage but no comment was made then or since about the doctrine of plural marriage as found in scripture. Just a comparison to show how two difficult issues can be viewed. One was never cannonized and can therefore be considered policy or even opinion. The other was and is cannonized doctrine and therefore not as easy to brush off as opinion or mistakes of men.

Confusing | 5:36 p.m. May 1, 2008

There is no question that the line between doctrine, opinion, policy or practice is very difficult to know. There are so many ways these different ideas are manifest - cannonized in scripture, spoken in conference or other talks, written in books by individual leaders, part of temple recommend questions - and there are even more variations at the local stake and ward levels including Bishop direction, peer pressure, Gospel Doctrine class doctrine, and even LDS urban legend.

President Hinkley's admonition for women to only wear two earrings - where would you place that? It was spoken in conference and reprinted in church publications. Birth control, r-rated movies, Sunday activities.... There are so many areas of guidance, suggestion and even opinion but when does it become doctrine?

And what about the divergence of two clearly spoken ideas - 1. "Once our leaders have spoken the thinking is done" versus 2. Each member is required to gain their own witness or confirmation of Church leader direction.

It really is tough to know but in the end I suppose we only answer to one person so it really is up to us to draw that line.

The Dilemma | 5:53 p.m. May 1, 2008

The dilemma is that we have been taught that our leaders - even at the level of Bishop - are called of God and inspired to lead us. And yet, at times they say things that, usually in hindsight, we find difficult to accept and at times even disturbing. Thankfully we are able to place those things in the category of opinion, weaknesses of men, erased through ongoing revelation, or just "place them on the shelf" for now. If is all you do is look at what is being said, done, and taught today it usally is pretty easy to accept. But if you kick back to a couple volumes of Journal of Discourses for your nighttime reading you may become a bit queezy.

Tough call.... | 6:03 p.m. May 1, 2008

"How do we actually know the difference between doctrines and simply the opinions of Church leaders?"

History, my friend, usually in hindsight...

We LDS are conditioned lap up every word that comes from the General Authorities, not to mention some of BYUï¿½s finest academicians. Iï¿½m old, and have been a member all my life. If itï¿½s preached from the pulpit, or written in a book...it becomes gospel to the members. Iï¿½m telling you that at the time, Elder McConkieï¿½s earlier works (as well as many others that are now obsolete) were considered authority and not opinion. It hardly helps that our finest speakers or most eloquent writers donï¿½t preface their views with ï¿½In my opinion.ï¿½ We have been taught from the cradle to look up to these great men as icons and heed their every word. Given our call to obedience, itï¿½s sometimes very precarious to accurately determine opinion from doctrine. Opinions change, but so can doctrine.

John Lambert | 7:51 p.m. May 1, 2008

I liked this article a lot. I have Helvecio Martin's autobiography and found it very enlightening.
Dr. Martins has a new book coming out soon "The Third Century of Mormonism". I have not yet read his book mentioned in this article. I am going to see if I can find at a local library, but I am not holding my breath. I will be positive and hope it is around though.

John Lambert | 8:32 p.m. May 1, 2008

Joseph Smith said that they way the church differed from other religions was through the Holy Ghost.
The inspiration and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the key to understanding how things operate. The Holy Ghost will testify to you that the words of the prophets and apostles are true. The Holy Ghost will tell you when things are out of line.
There are two other problems. Some people misinterpret what a leader says. This is not to say that leders do not make statements that are wrong, but just because you think someone meant one thing does not mean that is what they said.
The second problem is that some people fail to realize that when they are given private council on what to do this may apply to them but not to others. Not all have to do things the same. Yet some people feel that since a certain course has helped them it will help others as well.

Anonymous | 3:20 p.m. May 2, 2008

On June 5, 2000 we left Phoenix, AZ, the Land of Desolation, to fly to Hawaii for 18 months as service missionaries going to the Polynesian Cultural Center. On the plane sat the impressive Martin family right in front of us.

Oldest son Flavio and my husband both tied in a contest to figure out at what time we'd be at the halfway point over the Pacific Ocean. Both were awarded a bottle of champagne. Terry turned down the bottle, so did Flavio, and we were impressed, wondering where this family was going.

They we saw a BYUH van loading up the Martins and their luggage. Later, on campus and in our Laie 3rd Ward, we met and became friends with the Martins. We so loved Marian, the cute children, and Marcus--who became my daughter Kristina Heiner Thompson's campus Bishop. They are sweet, fabulous people, natural born leaders. We miss them and loved reading about them (hope they see this)!

Nadine & Terry Allen (Land of Bountiful, UT now)

Visitor | 10:23 p.m. May 3, 2008

I did some additional research on the story of the Martins family. Despite the majority of the comments here claiming otherwise, the Martins were wronged by the LDS. However, the men in the family apparently were willing to wallow in the degradation of overt racism to win approval of conservative white people who did not consider them fully human. Marcus Martins' pamphlet about the priesthood ban goes out of its way to avoid placing the responsibility for the LDS' long history of racism where it belongs - on Mormon leaders and their followers. Most of the comments do the same thing by praising the Martins for being complicit in the discrimination. If they had
fought the racist beliefs of the LDS instead of behaving like lapdogs, the response would be quite different.

Late to the Party | 9:23 p.m. May 5, 2008

It's been great reading all of these comments, and I'm happy to report that there are answers and we no longer have to speculate. The Blacks in the Scriptures film by Darius Gray and Marvin Perkins spends 3 hours pointing out things in the scriptures that have never been taught by the church and are as clear as ever. Its all in the scriptures.

My thoughts are that the doctrine of the church is in the scriptures. And if we rely on them and the spirit of the Lord, we cannot make the same mistakes that we've made for so long.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.