Tell them the truth, read them 'Race and the Priesthood' from lds.org
If their friends obtain a testimony of the Gospel itself, when blacks were
finally allowed to be ordained to the Priesthood and go to the temple to receive
their endowments and be sealed won't matter to them at all. If they
don't gain a testimony, then they will get hung up on it. It's really
that simple. Also, considering that MLK was a Baptist, and that the
priesthood revelation didn't really have anything to do with the civil
rights movement, MLK's birthday may not have been as appropriate a day to
discuss this issue as it seemed.
The "despite not holding callings" line is slightly misleading. There
may have been African-American church members who did not hold callings.
However, they could still and in some cases did hold callings. There were cases
of African-Americans serving as Sunday School presidents.On the
other hand, it has been a long road since 1978, and we still have a lot further
to travel. a quarter of my stakes high council is African-American, but I fear
we will go down before we ever go above that level. At the same time, over 40%
of the people who live in the boundaries of my stake are African-American. Marvin Perkins and Darius Gray as well as others have done a great work
in expanding thinking on this matter. However I fear too many white Latter-day
Saints have not put forth the effort to really understand and be able to love
African-Americans. Even less are they able to relate to them.As a
missionary in Las Vegas from 2000-2002 I saw that many Church members still held
very racist attitudes. However I think the bigger problem was an unwillingness
to understand the cultural background many African-Americans were coming from.
I would recommend reading Marvin Perkins statements and teachings about the
issue.If this family are African-Americans with long background in
the US, avoiding the topic is not wise. I would say focus on Jesus and the Book
of Mormon, but bring up the priesthood issue, best using actual statements of
African-Americans like Perkins. The race and the priesthood section on the
church website has some video connected to it that might also be helpful.If they or there parents immigrated to the US from Ghana, Nigeria,
Jamaica or Haiti, I would put off bringing up the issue. It is much less likely
to be part of their preconceived notions on the Church.Lastly I
would emphasize that we only know that the Lord allowed the ban, not that he
ever actively permitted it. We do not understand the Lord as much as we
sometimes claim. His ways are not our ways.
To OnlytheCross,I admire your devotion for the Bible text and
God's word.However being among Mormons on side you should have
studied more carefully how they came up with such as Priesthood and Sacrament
and Saving Ordinances.You will be surprised how many scriptures
Israel had in times of Abraham and Joseph.We lack these scriptures and
because God said : (If any man shall take away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of
the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book)That is a clear indication that many have tried to do so, and many have
succeeded in taking scriptures away. That is where the LDS church is founded on,
on the teachings of Christ, which were lost and have been taken by evil men.
Would you want to belong to the group of those that have done so ? Save
yourself, save the truth.
I guess you all missed the "inference", so I'll help you. Or read
the book of Hebrews as it is clearly written.No aspect of the LDS
priesthood is Biblical, except for the meaning of the elements. Biblical
priests and the High Priest did temple sacrifices, period. No marriages or
celestial endowments were ever practiced.New Testament church leaders are
all called as adult men. The only prohibitions are boys, women or
polygamists.Skin color or ethnicity has never been an issue of salvation,
justification, exaltation or blessings in any way.Hence all problems
associated with Mormon priesthood are due to its unbiblical structure, from the
purely evangelical/literal position. The Black prohibition is only one of many
unbiblical additions. Christ didn't even say how often to partake of the
Sharrona,So the apostles did not understand Christ but you do?
Sorry, but I simply cannot believe that. To believe that they failed (in the
end) to understand Christ would call into question everything they taught and
wrote which means the entire NT becomes an unreliable record and we can call off
any attempt at following Christ or being Christians.Yes, the
apostles were often (perhaps almost always) in agreement. My point was that
they were imperfect and the record shows that.Edward Kimball relates
many stories of how there were precursors to the 1978 revelation – things
that indicated change was coming but NOT due to political pressure but signs
from the Holy Ghost.BTW, Dr. Quinn has an axe to grind so I will be
unmoved by most things he produces.
@Christopher BI don't think your ? was answered(haven't had time
to read all)...Leaders of the church are everyday people...they
express their personal thoughts like anyone else....ONLY when they are SPEAKING
for God is it meant to be guidance for the church as a whole. Bruce R. and
others were speaking for themselves(his Mormon Doctrine, for instance, was
specifically stated to be PERSONAL opinion)...IF there is a statement
made(specifying it is revelation for Church) in opposition to the 1978
revelation then I'm not aware of it...IF there is then my thoughts are that
AGAIN...our leaders are but human striving like the rest of us...HOWEVER to
date(since 1972)I have yet to see a leader express ANYTHING in opposition to
RE: Semi-Strong, ‘His disciples continue to go to the temple?
Jesus' own disciples, both before and after Pentecost, frequently
didn't understand what the Master was doing. Although they had a perfect
Teacher, they often failed to understand him correctly. Nevertheless, Jesus used
them. This demonstrated that the disciples' success was a result of
God's work, not human achievement. Peter confirms Paul as an
Apostle.(2Peter 3:16) The Apostles in agreement:(1 Tim 6:16
NLT)… he(God) lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him.
No human eye has ever seen him, nor ever will.(Heb 11:27)… he
(Moses)endured, as seeing him who is invisible. “(1 John
4:1).. test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false
prophets have gone out into the world…..verse 12 No man hath seen God at
any time.RE: Twin lights: D. Michael Quinn, at "the
cornerstone-laying ceremony for the Brazilian temple on 9 March 1977."
states that "Kimball privately told Helvecio Martins, a faithful black
member, to prepare himself to receive the priesthood" in the not too distant
future (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, p. 16).
Christopher BYou said, "Ok, and when 2 people get opposite
answers as to the answer to a doctrinal question, which is the correct
one?".Humans believe and follow what aligns best with
perceptions of "possiblility" or "truth". Experiences and
exposure in life create according to what they might accept, integral with
existing beliefs.If humans believe what is most congruent with what
they know, then wouldn't God who understands all things, give His truths
and knowledge in a manner they are most willing to believe and accept? Does this in any way negate God or that one person becomes more prepared
by life experiences to receive a greater purity of truth then another person?
Would that make God a respecter of persons?Could it be
that your will was to uphold current beliefs, versus seek and follow the will of
God, even if His purer answers stand contrary to personal conclusions and what
you were willing to prove / accept?God's truth is not
frustrated by humanity, but we determine the portion He can share with us
according to humility, teachability, and willingness to change for His
word's sake. Hense, diverse interpretations of God exist.
Lost, lost, lost. So sad to have to revisit this issue. Thoroughly unbiblical
theology...Alan Cherry (look up Black LDS Author) was my Sunday
School teacher at Ricks, 1969-70. He was a beautiful, humble, articulate soul.
But even then we all knew it was wrong, a travesty and an injustice.Thank God many of us found the Truth in God's Word: "For the
word of God is living and powerful... Piercing even to the division of soul and
spirit, and joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart. And there is no creature that is hidden from His sight, but all
things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to Whom we must give an
account." Hebrews 4:12,13. And the rest of the book gives the Biblical
priesthood for followers of the Biblical Christ.
As LDS (senior) missionaries, my wife and I have had many opportunities to
discuss many gospel topics with native Africans and people of African descent in
the US and elsewhere.My experience is that Angela's answer is
right on target. What people really care about is what the gospel of Jesus
Christ, and especially the restored gospel of Jesus Christ has to offer them and
their families. Yes, the issue of priesthood will likely come up sooner or
later, but it becomes of minor concern once a close relationship is established
and they understand what the Savior really offers them. Evidence of this is the
rate at which Africans are joining the Church, and the many who joined the
Church years ago, knowing that they could not, at that time, receive the
priesthood. They knew through the Spirit that the restored gospel of Jesus
Christ was for them.Hope this helps.
Christopher BTo answer your quesion about the book:Yes,
it is called: MEANS OF PRESERVING HEALTH, AND PREVENTING DISEASES, Dr. Shadrach
Ricketson. Printed by Collins, Perkins, and Co, New York, 1806.I
ordered a copy on amazon.com so I could see it for myself. It is the real deal.
It is very interesting, especially since it was published in New York!
As I and my family (we're all caucasian) moved from place to place around
the country, I have asked several African-American members of the church why
they joined the church. Everyone of them said the same thing: The Holy Spirit
witnessed to them that it is true. That's the same reason that I joined
the church when I was 23 back in 1983. There are many reasons why people
investigate the church, but ultimately there is only one "good" reason
to join: A witness by the Spirit. As for the 1978 revelation, I
understand the desire on the part of the Saints to find explanations. Yet I was
pleased when the church offcially declared that it was never God's intent
to withhold the priesthood from those with African blood. There is no
authoritative declaration initiating the practice. It was wrong all along and
it's been humbly and apologetically corrected. For any hurts that remains,
the only way to obtain full healing is through Christ.
Sharrona,You are changing topics (again). The simple point is that
Edward Kimball’s piece repudiates the political expediency argument,
right?As to prophets being fallible. Kimball is right. Yes, they
are fallible but what we see as failure is not always so.Think of
Jonah (interestingly one of the few prophets cited by Christ). After preaching
in Nineveh, he felt that he had been shown to be wrong. God then teaches him
otherwise.Paul talked to Peter when the latter would not eat with
Gentiles. Paul himself was in a rather sharp contention with Barnabas.From this I take it that even great men of God are fallible yet remain men of
RE: Semi-Strong, ‘Edward Kimball’, son of late LDS President Spencer
W. Kimball., “We pay lip service to the prophet’s fallibility, But
when you come down to specifics, we can’t think of any incidents where a
prophet was wrong.”? Jesus gave the commandment.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations(ethnos=ethnicity),
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit/Ghost”(Mt 28:19);“Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature.”(Mark 16:15).@1.96
Standard Deviations, “Jew and Gentile(Hellēn=a Greek) are the Same in
this respect. …, For “Everyone’ who calls on the name of the
LORD(YHWH) be saved.”(Romans 10:12-13 NLT) Richard Ostling
"What happened in 1978 was that this burden was lifted from Black Mormons.
More importantly, a huge burden was lifted from Mormonism because it was rid of
Theological Racism." i.e..,(Genesis 7:22 JST) “all the seed of
Adam save it were the seed of Cain; for the seed of Cain were black and had not
a place among them.”
Angela's advice is dead on. If the basic principles of the restored gospel
are not intriguing in the first place, no other gospel topic is really worth
discussing at length. The first goals should to strengthen friendship, which can
endure whether or not the family is interested in the gospel, and let them know
what you believe and drives the way you live your life.As for
references to the topic of Blacks and the Priesthood, the Edward Kimball article
mentioned by others is excellent. I'd also recommend Elder
Joseph Sitati's October 2009 General Conference talk entitled
"Blessings of the Gospel Available to All". I've heard him address
the topic in person and in more detail, but he repeated several times that the
central points are in this conference talk.
"Lifting the ban was not based on political expediency or social
pressure."This is exactly why the ban was lifted. Can you imagine
back in the 70's if the Church had lost it's tax exempt status with
the federal government the tremendous economical loss it would have meant to the
Church. It's staggering. This was a business decision by SWK and the Q12
and it was not unanimous. But it had to happen or "City Creek" many of
the new temples and so on and so on would never have happened.
Many of these comments remind me of the old axiom "Don't confuse me
with the facts. My mind's made up." For example:"They [the
prophets] were just speaking as a man." Only somebody's opinion, and
IMHO, has never been officially stated by the LDS Church;also lacks an
understanding on the part of critics about how prophecy functions from time to
time."Not logical" or "contradictory" or "a whimsical
God"--reflects a lack of knowledge about how God reveals his current
will."Politically expedient" Ditto--and shows an unawareness of
how God expects His Church and His children to grow and progress, largely on
their own while exercising faith in Him. And so forth.But to get
back to the subject: If and only if the subject comes up, you may wish to be
prepared with testimonies of other black LDS. Thurl Bailey's conversion
story is excellent!
sashabillAgain, those quotes you gave were only Joseph Smith's
opinion, they were not doctrine.
Some additional items which may be helpful here are as follows: Revelation 14:
6 relates John's vision of another angel flying "in the midst of
heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth,
and to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people." Mormons, of course,
believe that this vision began to be fulfilled with the visitations of Moroni.
Moroni told Joseph (P of GP, History, V. 33) that Joseph's name would be
had for both good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues.Joseph told some of the brethren in Kirtland that they "knew no more than
a babe on its mother's lap" concerning the destiny of the church - that
it would be established in the Americas and throughout the world. Later in the
Wentworth Letter (1842) Joseph stated that the truth would go forth "boldly,
nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every
clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear." Again, there is no
hint of exceptions pertaining to any particular area of the world, or continent,
race, or nation of people.
Additional informative reading may be found in "Last Laborer- Thoughts and
Reflections of a Black Mormon," (Keith Hamilton, c2011, Ammon Works), as
well as the Edward kimball Article mentioned earlier (BYU Studies 47, no. 2,
2008).We learn from Gen. 12: 1-3 that through Abraham, all of the
families and kindreds of the earth will be blessed. This same promise is
repeated more than once in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 13: 30, & 3 Nephi 20:
25-27). No exception is made pertaining to any one race or area of the world.
Other verses of interest are: 1 Nephi 17: 35 (all flesh is esteemed as one),1
Nephi 22: 3-5, and 2 Ne 25:15 regarding the Jews being scattered among all
nations. Altogether, at least 20 specific verses in the Book of Mormon speak of
all nations hearing the gospel, all needing repentance, all being judged by
their works,and all being welcomed whomever will come.The Doctrine
and Covenants contains some 78 references to the gospel going forth among all
nations and people. A half-dozen such references are in Section One alone.
Again, no exception is made for any one race, continent, or nation.
Since the beginning of time, ecclesiastical policies change with the times but
doctrines are eternal and never change. For example, Peter received a vision
after Christ's crucifixion changing the policy of proselyting gentiles. The
priesthood is doctrine, who holds it is policy as it was in Jesus' day when
only descendants of Israel held the priesthood. I wept for joy when the
revelation changing the policy was received!
Before you say anything about blacks and the priesthood, please read Ed
Kimball's article in BYU Studies about his father's 1978 revelation.
It will likely prevent you from giving any faulty explanations (which still tend
to get too much play in Mormondom). The title is "Spencer W. Kimball and the
Revelation on Priesthood," by Edward L. Kimball. Search for it on the BYU
Studies website under either the title or the author. It's free for
"Lifting the ban was not based on political expediency or social
pressure."Logic and timing would indicate differently. Same with polygamy. It is just the most logical answer.
Now if polygamy or the priesthood issue had been changed with no outside
pressure and come completely out of the blue, they would have looked to be much
To those who say "disregard the things in the past. Just pray and you will
find the true answer".Would not Warren Jeffs say the same thing
and some would perceive their "answer" to follow him?
joe, Again I appreciate the response but you're not at all addressing the
questions I ask, so I'm not sure why you refer to me in your comment. If Mormons believe that prophets/apostles speak for God, then there
would never be a need to distance the LDS church from past comments made by
apostles/prophets, as they were speaking for God. And if God said it, why try to
pretend it wasn't said or that it was incorrect?And if the all
too convenient "he was speaking as a man" excuse can always be made
whenever its needed, how is one in the LDS church to know when a prophet/apostle
is speaking for God?Pray about it? Ok, and when 2 people get
opposite answers as to the answer to a doctrinal question, which is the correct
one? isn't that the whole point of claiming prophets/apostles speak for
God in the first place?The LDS church is now trying to claim that
the ban was not doctrinal, but that is NOT supported by what many past lds
prophets/apostles(speaking for God presumably) have said.
sharrona:Lifting the ban was not based on political expediency or
social pressure. As evidence, how do you explain why thousands of Nigerians,
demanding to be baptized, were declined by the church for many years (at least
since 1961)? It makes no sense for a missionary-minded church to refuse to
baptize thousands of converts if the church was bowing to social pressure.From the report Semi-Strong mentioned:"LaMar Williams,
who as secretary to the Church Missionary Committee answered letters that came
from Africa, was sent to Nigeria in 1961. He was met at the airport by ten
pastors he had been corresponding with and discovered that they were unaware of
one another. Williams returned with the names of fifteen thousand unbaptized
converts who were waiting for the Church to come to them.""[In] 1962, when newly ordained Apostle N. Eldon Tanner spent two weeks in
the Lagos area, visiting three groups using the Church's name, one of which
claimed four thousand baptized adherents. When he reminded them that they did
not have authority to baptize, their leader said he understood that, but he
wanted the people to feel they belonged to the Church while they waited for the
Sharrona,Please read the article by Edward Kimball. It talks about
RE: Semi-Strong,.. this was simply a politically expedient change.In 1978 Brazil, was one of the strongest reasons why the ban was lifted. The
opening of its new temple in Sao Paulo, the LDS Church was ordaining hundreds of
Brazilians to its priesthood. Did the LDS Church ignore Brazilian history?
Between 1538 and Brazil's abolition of slavery in 1888, about five million
African slaves were brought to that country. Through mixed marriages, Mulattos
make up a substantial portion of the Brazilian population. How would the LDS
Church possibly know whether or not those being ordained were qualified? With
the dedication of this temple only a few months away, it would seem imperative
that the church either lift the ban or face the possibility of a public
relations nightmare.RE: 1.96 Standard Deviations , Christ directed
the preaching of the gospel to Jews only.Other sheep,(John 10:16)
Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the
Gentiles, and they will listen!"(Acts 28:28). Isaiah... "I
was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not
ask for me."(Romans 10;20) Neither the Lamanites nor the Nephites meet this
For all who think this was simply a politically expedient change. Search for
"Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood" by Edward
Kimball (his son and a historian). It is available at BYU Studies.This gives very personal insight into the issue and puts to rest the issue of
whether President Kimball was simply bowing to societal pressure.
Still too much heavy stuff circulating here.Remember giving the gospel to
others his high responsibility, a failure on your part may cause generations to
lack the saving ordinances of the gospel.The fact that this family
will come and listen some is prove enough that they are ready.Let it go
(no complicated stuff) be happy and enjoy them. By the time you have said all of
your prayers and discussed all of the deep issues on DN, they will be ready to
meet the missionaries. We must remember our responsibilty not to put
a stumbling block into their way.Most of the conversion is an ongoing
bussiness between them and God.They will celebrate you as their best
friends some day.
ChrisB: The concept of a living church and living God is strange to most
non-members. Mormons believe God provides revelation appropriate for the time
and circumstances.Jehovah commanded ancient Israel to not eat pork.
Why? I don't know (see Isaiah 55:8). Perhaps no safe method of curing pork
existed. Perhaps it was just to test their faith.Today's word
of wisdom offers health benefits but, even more, I believe it discriminates
faithful members from others. One of their first questions any member faces is
about coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco.Who knows why the priesthood
was withheld for 150 years? Maybe social circumstances were not right. Even
today in the south, black preachers preach primarily to black congregations.
Maybe it was a test of faith. I heard Spencer W Kimball say, 9 days after the
1978 announcement, that he had never seen such faith as those black members of
the church who kept faithful and worthy to enter the temple despite not holding
callings or having the priesthood in their homes. I don't know His
reasons.The past is a foreign country. Please don't judge them
based on today's morality.
Chris BI respectfully submit that your comments below perpetuates
the same rumors and propaganda that have been around since the days of Jesus
Smith (minus technology) as stated in the below quote:"My
suggestion: Tell them to go google it...just do a google search and read it all.
That's what I have done and I learned a lot."To all those
who choose to put down something they cannot understand except by the means of
sufficient firsthand investigation, immersion, and time to possess enough
understanding, such knowledge believed is merely academic and likely to be a
rehash of information already said by someone else.If truth is to be
known of anything, be it religion or science or whatever, one cannot merely
delve in leading theories exposed by vicarious reading for what can only be
known for certain with sustained firsthand experience. Truth is not found by
condemning something before such a personal experiment is conducted.Such is not only contrary to science, but it is subjective and has no basis in
truth or fact beyond the strength of purity in the material of copied rhetoric.
All it does is spread contention.
I think it's about sharing your space. They will be in your home, make it
friendly. You not selling Amway. Your making friends.
Cali Family:I don't think your plan is a good idea --
addressing this first won't help plant a seed of faith regarding what the
church is really about. A more meaningful lesson is that the priesthood is on
the Earth (again) and it is only found in The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.You should consider giving the first lesson taught
by missionaries, which is about the restoration of Christ's gospel and
church. This lesson includes an explanation about the priesthood, why it is
necessary and why it is only found in the LDS church. You can review the
principles of the first lesson in the Preach My Gospel manual (pages 31-46).If the topic of the past priesthood restriction comes up, just keep it
simple. We don't know all the reasons because of the lack of historical
records. But, God directed the prophet in 1978 to extend the priesthood to every
worth male. It may also be helpful to indicate there were priesthood
restrictions in the Old Testament, and even a time when Christ directed the
preaching of the gospel to Jews only.
joe5, I appreciate the response, but I'm not sure your comment answers
anything. I believe that some friends of the church weren't members, but
I'm not sure how that has to do with my question. I still
haven't heard how LDS members know when a prophet is for God and when he
isn't?If prophets/apostles always speak for God, then the LDS
church would never need to disagree with something a past prophet/apostle said,
unless God changed his mind back and forth.And if the church
doesn't claim that everything said by a prophet/apostle is from God, then
how can anyone ever know when it comes from God and when it doesn't?pray? Ok, and when two people pray and get two different answers?
Again, we're back to thats what a prophet is for right?It just
seems all to convenient for Mormons to say that their prophets speak for God,
but then retain the right to go back and say "he was speaking as a man"
whenever something doesn't turn out well.
Chris B. I absolutely believe that can and does happen.Sometimes
there may be a valid reason for it. For example, some of the Church's best
friends were not members but held key political or social positions. As Mormons,
they would not have had the credibility among non-Mormons to accomplish what
they did for the church.Often people misunderstand how the process
works. "Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of
the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer
is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others
blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on
our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we
can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work. Many prayers remain unanswered
because they are not in Christ’s name at all; they in no way represent His
mind but spring out of the selfishness of man’s heart." It takes work
and humility to hear God's answer over our own.
Michael Jensen,What if two people "act on it" and come to
two different conclusions?Isn't that the point of prophets and
Sharing Mormonism is never about convincing someone to believe something. If you
can argue them into the church, somebody can argue them out. Being exposed to
the gospel of Jesus Christ should be equivalent to being exposed to the Spirit
of the Holy Ghost. Without that, they will not stick.
@BrahmabullThe Lord does not work against himself. Read the answer I
gave in my previous post. This is the last post I can make on this article, so
I'll try to make it a good one! How do you know it was his opinion? How do
you know that he wasn't speaking by inspiration at that time? Because he
was wrong before? Simple answer. Petition the Lord for an answer. Exercise
faith. Read the scriptures. Keep the commandments. Find out for yourself. If you
never exercise any faith, you will never arrive at any heaven-given answer. If
we sow the seeds of our own logic and wisdom, with doubt, and dead-end
reasoning, then we will reap the dulling, and unsatisfying fruit of it. If we
sow the seeds of belief, and of trust in God, with faith and a realization that
we do not know the whole situation, then what will we reap? The fruit, our
answer, in God's timing. If we never exercise any faith in God, then we
will never understand how He works. Go study the words of Paul in the New
@ michael.jensen369On the one hand we live in an open society with
access to all kind of informations,on the other hand if they have not yet
read our comments, we should keep in mind that they need spiritual milk first
before they can eat spiritual meat.They are invited to have a
spiritual supper, and we cannot explain to them obidience versus Holy Ghost,
that would be spiritual meat, and very very hard to chew.The most
important thing of the first gospel is simple and easy for everyone, enjoy the
spirit testifying of them being factual children of our Father in Heaven.They need to learn to rule themselves, not by us !Teachings is not
our bussiness, only to show a way to find happiness.They need to find. We
need to watch and enjoy the process.
michael.jensen369You can't use that quote... Who is to say that
later on there will be another apostle discrediting what McConkie said in that
quote. Plus, it was only his opinion. If he was wrong before, maybe he was wrong
This is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and Christ himself is
the one who directs it. His prophets are not perfect, but when they speak under
the inspiration of the Almighty, the word of the Lord is unrestrained and
untainted by the imperfections of the instrument. The question is often asked,
how do you know when they are speaking for the Lord? Simple. Act on it. Find out
for yourself. The witness comes by the power of the Holy Ghost, as we act in
accordance with God's will. I have mentioned this before several times on
this site, yet still the same people ask the same questions. This is the answer.
It's simple, and clear, and because it is simple it is easily overlooked.
"And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these
things;...wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness
until after the trial of your faith."Act on it, pray about it,
and find out for yourself. Otherwise we remain in the dark and never learn
"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. "What a convenient response every time something that was said by a past
apostle or prophet(presumable speaking for God) is called into question. my response is this: If God said it(through apostles and prophets) why
the need to hide it pretend it wasn't said? And if God wasn't
speaking through those apostles or prophets who said things the church now
doesn't claim to support, how is anyone to know when a prophet or apostle
is speaking for God or not?Are people to always assume a
prophet/apostle is speaking for God, only to retain the right and backtrack and
scratch whatever we want at any point with the all too helpful "He was
speaking as a man"?
You could direct them to the new Race and the Priesthood page on lds.org as
well. The fact of the matter is, a ban like this is not unique to this
dispensation. In the Old Testament, only Levites could hold the priesthood. That
was the only group who were allowed. People from other tribes could have been
just as worthy, just as ready, but for whatever reason, the Lord said that only
Levites could hold it. Same thing with the New Testament and preaching the
gospel to the Gentiles. At the beginning of the apostles ministry, the gospel
was not taken to the gentiles. As time went on, a revelatory experience came to
Peter, the chief apostle, that that restriction had now lifted, and that now was
the time to take the gospel to them as well. The fact of the matter is, that
this topic has scriptural precedent. On that race and the priesthood page, it
mentions that President McKay prayed sincerely about this subject, and that the
impression that came to him was to wait. To wait! President McKay's heart
was just a pure and worthy as was President Kimball's.
"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 had
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." -Bruce R. McConkieThere is only one principle, and
that is to be obedient to the promptings and direction of the Holy Ghost.
That's it. I'd say any other advice falls secondary to that.
Super advise Angela. Giving them the opportunity to feel the Spirit is the
first and most important thing you can do...
The first basic approach should be always toward their feelings for God the
Father and his Son Jesus Christ. That is what most black people like very much,
they love this since most of them are raised with some christian background.For the other stuff like priesthood and 1978 etc. I would make the
following suggestion :Mark some topics from which they can choose,
and then make it a fun game to answer any questions. That way there will be a
lot to talk about and next time they want to meet.Remember if the
1978 would come up, to replace the issue with Heavenly Father's issue that
He loves each one of them so much, that it will be a great loss for them not
knowing more about it. But never assume any racial differences of any kind. In
Fact there are none, we just perceive them as such. Heavenly Father cannot see
colors as we do.Most important to let them ask anything they want,
and feel free to find the good intentions of this church at any angle of
approach. They are in good hands with you.You might want to introduce them
RE: Chris B. After all, Mormons believe that Mormon apostles and prophets speak
for God, so what better way to teach them than to send them directly to what the
LDS prophets and apostles have said. just do a google search and read it all.
@History of the Church, Volume 5, pages 218-219.
I am not sure they would want to read what previous apostles and prophets have
said about them... I don't think that would help.
My suggestion: Tell them to go google it. Read what all the LDS
prophets and apostles have said on the subject over the years.After
all, Mormons believe that Mormon apostles and prophets speak for God, so what
better way to teach them than to send them directly to what the LDS prophets and
apostles have said.just do a google search and read it all.That's what I have done and I learned a lot.
You could begin the discussion by asking them what they already know or have
heard about the Church. If they talk about misconceptions, gently correct them.
If they talk about good things, focus on them. If they bring up the priesthood
thing, talk about it. If they don't, let it wait for another day. The key
is focus on them and their interests at first, and to use your own personal
experiences as a way of teaching. The goal for the 1st meeting is to make them
want to come back for a 2nd.
Just say 'when it became politically necessary, a revelation was
forthcoming'. As for the past, well, uh......
This advice could easily backfire. If they are already aware of the priesthood
ban and the history of blacks then the topic could become an elephant in the
room. Additionally they might not be willing to bring it up themselves because
of how awkward it can be to discuss. On top of that, if you wait and then they
find out themselves via Google (in this era I'd be surprised if they
weren't researching online) or some other means, they may feel like you
were not completely upfront and honest with them.I say be upfront and
honest with them and let them decide for themselves.
Make the night about you, your spouse, kids, and how family home evening brings
happiness to your family. Let them watch how you interact with each other- this
is more powerful than any lesson you can prepare. Angela is right, discussing
controversial subject at the first meeting is not a good idea, unless they bring
I agree with Angela, let them bring it up when they are ready.