Mormon women plan 'Wear Pants to Church Day’

When you're a Mormon does someone check you to make sure you're wearing the magic underwear? See because sometimes my grandma pulls up my shirt to make sure im wearing my long underwear when it's cold out.
 
Frank, Despite the hype and misreporting, nothing has changed in Latter-day Saint doctrine regarding same sex attraction, nor will it.
It will change. The church has been changing for a long time. The everlasting covenant of polygamy on Earth? Gone. Blacks not having the priesthood? Gone.
 
No, this is not in anyway comparable.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." --Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110
 
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." --Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110

BURRRRRRRRN

unless of course, mormons accept that Brigham Young was the racist,homophibc guy making stuff up....:rolleyes:
 
BURRRRRRRRN

unless of course, mormons accept that Brigham Young was the racist,homophibc guy making stuff up....:rolleyes:
I think they do but they don't want to say so explicitly. The Mormon Church has a dance of avoiding certain issues. They condemn past racism in the Church but they don't really explain what that is exactly. Young was ostensibly a prophet of god. God's mouthpiece. How the hell did god let his chosen prophet make some really racist comments?

Official LDS News Release said:
source The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.
Pretty vague. They've never given an account for why the Church would not allow blacks to have the priesthood and why god was silent for a couple hundred years.
 
Last edited:
As you should be aware Rand the time period was not "a couple of hundred years".
 
Rand, As you should be aware, this is not nor has never been LDS Doctrine.
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." --Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110
 
As you should be aware Rand the time period was not "a couple of hundred years".

founded in 1820's

Early Church allowed one or two black men to be "elders" this is said to have led Young to abolish the practice after Smith died "to mingle the seed is death to all" (Quorum of the Twelve Minutes, December 3, 1847, pp. 6–7, LDS Archives.)

1978 church reverses the decision allowing blacks to be elders


so it was 158 years
 
No, this is not in anyway comparable.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.

Oh my... this person is for real...
 
Frank, Despite the hype and misreporting, nothing has changed in Latter-day Saint doctrine regarding same sex attraction, nor will it. The recent announcement was to assure the family of a person who may be struggling with this trial, and the individual themselves, that help is available and providing they do not act on such thoughts they are still welcome within the Church. This has always been the official LDS position.

No, this is not in anyway comparable.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.

And yet you can tell us that the Lord will never allow gay marriage? You know this how?
 
Why would the Lord choose Joseph Smith, someone who had been convicted of "glass-looking" (pretending to be psychic and conning people out of their money by pretending to be able to find buried treasure) to be guided to find his buried plates?

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon430.htm

That would be like God choosing someone who had been exposed as a fraudulent physical medium as his conduit for entering the world as a physically as Jesus formed of ectoplasm. Or a bank owner choosing a convicted fraudster and money launderer to manage his bank.
 
No, this is not in anyway comparable.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.

Remember, the ensouling of blacks was one of the "To whom it may concern" proclamations, NOT one that was from God almighty. Like the abolition of polygamy, it was a "soft" change, clearly not one from God, but one made to comply with God's order to follow the secular laws of man when necessary. It was a compromise, and the way it was announced makes that very clear.

Go back and read the actual proclamations. The difference in wording is very dramatic and very revealing. I've met a number of Mormons who were greatly relieved when they went back and read the actual proclamations and compared them to the other similar latter day revelations. God did not change, the church changed stated doctrine, but was following God's rules for doing so.

As a side note, and I know a few Mormons who have emphasized this point to justify their remaining within the LDS and not splitting off, allowing dark skinned people to become elders is not the same thing as endorsing interracial marriages. The LDS initiated a "Separate but Equal" policy in the late 1970's. Take a look at the areas where there are black LDS elders, and then check out how often those black elders marry white women.

Not often.

It's quite clever really. By taking blacks into the fold, they can enforce the same social control they have over the white kids. Interracial marriages can be prevented by gently pressuring the kids to make a more "appropriate" match, always with subterfuge and excuses without an explicit admission that the REASON the match is not good is because they kids are different races. This way the LDS avoids the stigma of overt racism, but can still largely prevent interracial marriages.
 
Last edited:
Remember, the ensouling of blacks was one of the "To whom it may concern" proclamations, NOT one that was from God almighty.

I'm curious about your use of the term "ensouling." As far as I'm aware, the change specifically allowed blacks to have the priesthood, but didn't change anything else. "Ensouling" would seem to imply that the church declared they now had souls, but that doesn't make sense; women still don't have the priesthood and there's never been any debate in the church about whether they have souls.

Also there was no doubt that the First Presidency thought the revelation was straight from God:

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood...

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood...

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth...

Edited to add link to the quote: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

Unlike some other revelations, the news is not worded as a quote from God, but the meaning is clearly stated to be God's will, and it was officially canonized by the church.

Use of the word "ensouling," and quibbling over whether the actual text of the revelation or the First Presidency's paraphrase of it was canonized, just seems... odd. Blacks had souls all along, and the message is truly from God and in the canon, according to the church, so far as I know.

The sadder and more obvious spin, in my opinion, is the First Presidency's claim that they were praying for blacks to get the priesthood and God was holding back, to deflect criticism from themselves for not doing it sooner. I guess members weren't supposed to care that God was a meany, as long as his prophets weren't.
 
Last edited:
Use of the word "ensouling," and quibbling over whether the actual text of the revelation or the First Presidency's paraphrase of it was canonized, just seems... odd. Blacks had souls all along, and the message is truly from God and in the canon, according to the church, so far as I know.

I never claimed the arguments were logical or even consistent. I'm going largely from the discussions I've had with Mormons both inside and outside the LDS. The difference between wording it as a direct quote from God vs conveying the essence of God's words is considered VERY important by some people. Similarly, the term "ensouling" is sometimes bandied about as a reference to blacks having inferior or incomplete souls as a result of cowardice in battle in the pre-existance.

As with most faiths, there's a gap between what the rank and file professes and what's put down in writing.

The sadder and more obvious spin, in my opinion, is the First Presidency's claim that they were praying for blacks to get the priesthood and God was holding back, to deflect criticism from themselves for not doing it sooner. I guess members weren't supposed to care that God was a meany, as long as his prophets weren't.

Taking blacks into the fold, allowing them roles withing the church, made them mundane. They were no longer exotic or a forbidden fruit. The church remains very much against interracial marriage.

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

President Spencer W. Kimball's Counsel on Interracial Marriage

Cultural differences pose dangers for marriage. When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise.

The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.

(Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 303.)

Apologists will of course claim that this is not church "doctrine". That argument dies however because in a religious context the gap between official "doctrine" and "advice" or "clarification" from an authority figure is often irrelevant. Technically, Paul's letters to the Corinthians were not official Christian doctrine, but were advice to a specific church. Despite this, his admonishment that women remain silent in church has kept women from positions of authority or instruction in most Christian churches for close to 2,000 years.
 
Last edited:
No, this is not in anyway comparable.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.
Except there's absolutely no evidence that this "god" exists or has interacted with humans. Whereas there's a lot of evidence that the LDS was founded by a con-artist who left a string of failed prophecies behind.

Rand, As you should be aware, this is not nor has never been LDS Doctrine.
:rolleyes:
 
Joey... Joseph was none of those things. False accusations from the followers of Lucifer mean nothing.
 

Back
Top Bottom