Page 5 of 9

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 8:50 am
by justme
Gage wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:38 am
justme wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:26 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:25 am
justme wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:21 am

"Never" is a long time. Are you sure the Lord will always choose your guidance over his own plans during that time?
I go by Scripture, no instances in scripture of women holding the priesthood (and don't quote the meager 3 potential passages of scripture).

It will happen b/c the members of the Church will want it to happen, no more, no less.
Lets flip the coin. Can you give one scripture that says that women will never hold the priesthood?

A woman will never hold the keys and a homosexual couple will never be sealed. If I am wrong then I may start questioning my faith.
Do you see the difference in the following two sentences:

"In my personal opinion I highly doubt that a homosexual couple will ever be sealed"

and "A homosexual couple will never be sealed."

Great difference. I am fully supportive of the first sentence. The second sentence is almost blasphemous for you are choosing to speak for and limit God for all time.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:14 am
by Gage
justme wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:50 am
Gage wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:38 am
justme wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:26 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:25 am
I go by Scripture, no instances in scripture of women holding the priesthood (and don't quote the meager 3 potential passages of scripture).

It will happen b/c the members of the Church will want it to happen, no more, no less.
Lets flip the coin. Can you give one scripture that says that women will never hold the priesthood?

A woman will never hold the keys and a homosexual couple will never be sealed. If I am wrong then I may start questioning my faith.
Do you see the difference in the following two sentences:

"In my personal opinion I highly doubt that a homosexual couple will ever be sealed"

and "A homosexual couple will never be sealed."

Great difference. I am fully supportive of the first sentence. The second sentence is almost blasphemous for you are choosing to speak for and limit God for all time.
ok fair enough, maybe my wording is off. I am not trying to speak for God, maybe I'm just too confident that he would not change his mind on this issue.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:14 am
by captainfearnot
justme wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:50 am Do you see the difference in the following two sentences:

"In my personal opinion I highly doubt that a homosexual couple will ever be sealed"

and "A homosexual couple will never be sealed."

Great difference. I am fully supportive of the first sentence. The second sentence is almost blasphemous for you are choosing to speak for and limit God for all time.
Justme, I'm of the same mind. And yet in LDS belief there is this idea that God is indeed limited by eternal principles that are bigger than him, isn't there? This whole idea that there are certain things that would cause him to "cease to be God" if he were to try and do them.

For instance, I thought this statement made by Lizzy60 sounded almost blasphemous:
Lizzy60 wrote: April 2nd, 2019, 1:57 pmI KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that homosexuality is a very serious sin. Just as I know that killing unborn children is a sin. Same with adultery, pedophelia, child sacrifice, and bestiality. I also KNOW that God hasn't, and will never change his mind on these sexual perversions. He would cease to be God.
I guess the question is, when is God at liberty to grant special dispensation (i.e. telling certain members that they need not tithe to the church or conform to the WoW) and when is He bound by laws bigger than Himself? And how do we know the difference (given the Ajax Corollary)?

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:20 am
by Cc07
Gage wrote: May 8th, 2019, 7:53 am Just because a modern day Prophet bears witness of Christ does not mean he has weekly face to face meetings with him.
I never said they had weekly meetings with Christ. I said that since they are witnesses of Christ and because they bear witness of Him to me that means that they have seen him.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:25 am
by Cc07
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:03 am
Cc07 wrote: May 8th, 2019, 7:40 am The Church is not in apostasy but the people sure are. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Words may be changed but it’s only to benefit our understanding but the principles and doctrine are the same. God has told us that Christ’s Church will never enter apostasy again but in the last days many members will be. Hence, the wheat and the tares. I do believe that Christ does run His Church and therefore He does visit with our prophet. Hearing Sister Nelson’s testimony of her knowing that her husband was the prophet and her witness of needing to leave the room sure implied to me that He was being visited by someone, if not the Lord. When our apostles and prophet stand and bear witness that Jesus Christ lives. And they are bearing witness- well a witness is someone who has seen.
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... ency-49701
I suggest reading this regarding women and their roles with the Priesthood. The Church is only expounding on what we have always been told and given which is women are endowed with Priesthood Power. There is a difference between being endowed and holding a Priesthood office. But women are given God’s power. Just because the Church is now explaining the meaning of these things doesn’t mean they are turning feminist. God is now allowing our minds for greater understanding of these things and all things. Truth is only a prayer away. I understand in this day of answers being given at the click of a mouse that we all want spiritual answers now. Well we know we have been told we need to deletion faith and that’s part of our journey here for our own learning and growth. It’s not too late for God to reveal to you if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ’s true Church here in Earth. And once you receive that answer you cling to that truth with all you’ve got. Because it’s a bumpy ride.
What is being taught today about women and Priesthood Power is false doctrine. It is apostasy at the highest levels . . .but b/c it comes from the "leaders" all is good.

The new ideology about women and Priesthood Power, has NEVER been taught previously in the Church, it is NOT supported by Scripture and this ideology renders the very meaning of Priesthood as null and void.

Basically, the women leadership are teaching that anyone who has a calling in the Church is operating by Priesthood Power, and that anytime anyone who is baptized in the Church does anything which is of God (whether they pray, receive an answer to prayer, fast, etc.) that it is done by Priesthood Power. Totally false.

It is a widening of the definition of what it means to actually use priesthood power to virtually encompass each and every act that a member feels is of God.

It renders DC 84 null and void. The true doctrine of Priesthood Power is inseparably connected with Priesthood Authority. The power of the Priesthood comes in what God grants to a righteous man. The Authority of the Priesthood gives man the authority to flip the light switch in a room from off/on. The Power of the Priesthood comes with God turns the lights on.

The current apostate leadership is teaching that basically anytime anyone prays

that the lights are turned on that person is operating under Priesthood Power. Totally false doctrine.

Mark my words, in 20 years women will have the "Priesthood", fat chance we get an addition to DC on it.

What has been previously taught, is that women gain access to Priesthod Power and Authority through their husband's Priesthood. But now b/c we are so "woke" in the Church, men don't mean squat.

I don't think the Church survives in it's current form in 20 years. One thing that has always served the Church well to maintain it's cohesive structure over the last 200 years has been it's rigid hierarchy. Very few Churches are able to maintain themselves as a large cohesive structure for hundreds of years. Most split off. Amazingly the Church has largely avoided this problem, while their have been break-offs, they don't last long and the largest has ~200,000 members.

The Church needs to split (and work on a way to split up resources too); so the liberals can have their party and the more conservative members can have their party too. This current arrangement . . .not gonna last. The UMC allows congregations that split to actually keep their buildings.

We have become like all other Church's, we have wonderful claims (and I love them), but the last time a President of the Church proclaimed to all the world he had seen Christ in no uncertain terms . . .well it's been a loooong while.

Elder Bednar said something very profound in April GC:
As a child, Joseph Smith learned of God from his family. His efforts to discover God’s will for him caused Joseph to search for the truth among many different Christian denominations, ponder diligently the scriptures, and pray sincerely to God. As young Joseph Smith returned to his home from the Sacred Grove immediately after the appearance of the Father and the Son, he spoke first with his mother. As he “leaned up to the fireplace, [his] mother inquired what the matter was. [Joseph] replied, ‘Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.’ [He] then said to [his] mother, ‘I have learned for myself.’”3 Joseph’s experience provides a powerful pattern of learning that each of us should emulate. We too need to learn for ourselves.

When was the last time an Apostle or Prophet "learned for himself"? Been a loooong while.
Have you ever been in a women’s initiatory?! I’m not saying women will ever get priesthood keys. I do not believe that. But we are endowed with priesthood power and yes it is through the priesthood office which the men hold. They are saying essentially the same thing as you. We hold callings and work in the church because of priesthood power which has been given us through priesthood blessings issuing us the call. This has always been the way and will continue to be the way.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:30 am
by Cc07
Women have been endowed with priesthood power and once women can realize the significance of that they won’t begging to hold priesthood keys or set apart to hold the priesthood. The priesthood is given to men to help other people. It doesn’t make you better than women because you hold the priesthood. It’s given as a gift from God to help other people.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:36 am
by Gage
Cc07 wrote: May 8th, 2019, 9:20 am
Gage wrote: May 8th, 2019, 7:53 am Just because a modern day Prophet bears witness of Christ does not mean he has weekly face to face meetings with him.
I never said they had weekly meetings with Christ. I said that since they are witnesses of Christ and because they bear witness of Him to me that means that they have seen him.
I knew what you meant, "weekly meetings" was meant as a light hearted joke. Maybe they do I do not know. I just personally believe the Prophet receives all revelation and guidance through inspiration and prayer and he bears witness that it is from God.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:43 am
by dezNatDefender
Cc07 wrote: May 8th, 2019, 9:25 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 8:03 am
Cc07 wrote: May 8th, 2019, 7:40 am The Church is not in apostasy but the people sure are. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Words may be changed but it’s only to benefit our understanding but the principles and doctrine are the same. God has told us that Christ’s Church will never enter apostasy again but in the last days many members will be. Hence, the wheat and the tares. I do believe that Christ does run His Church and therefore He does visit with our prophet. Hearing Sister Nelson’s testimony of her knowing that her husband was the prophet and her witness of needing to leave the room sure implied to me that He was being visited by someone, if not the Lord. When our apostles and prophet stand and bear witness that Jesus Christ lives. And they are bearing witness- well a witness is someone who has seen.
https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-a ... ency-49701
I suggest reading this regarding women and their roles with the Priesthood. The Church is only expounding on what we have always been told and given which is women are endowed with Priesthood Power. There is a difference between being endowed and holding a Priesthood office. But women are given God’s power. Just because the Church is now explaining the meaning of these things doesn’t mean they are turning feminist. God is now allowing our minds for greater understanding of these things and all things. Truth is only a prayer away. I understand in this day of answers being given at the click of a mouse that we all want spiritual answers now. Well we know we have been told we need to deletion faith and that’s part of our journey here for our own learning and growth. It’s not too late for God to reveal to you if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ’s true Church here in Earth. And once you receive that answer you cling to that truth with all you’ve got. Because it’s a bumpy ride.
What is being taught today about women and Priesthood Power is false doctrine. It is apostasy at the highest levels . . .but b/c it comes from the "leaders" all is good.

The new ideology about women and Priesthood Power, has NEVER been taught previously in the Church, it is NOT supported by Scripture and this ideology renders the very meaning of Priesthood as null and void.

Basically, the women leadership are teaching that anyone who has a calling in the Church is operating by Priesthood Power, and that anytime anyone who is baptized in the Church does anything which is of God (whether they pray, receive an answer to prayer, fast, etc.) that it is done by Priesthood Power. Totally false.

It is a widening of the definition of what it means to actually use priesthood power to virtually encompass each and every act that a member feels is of God.

It renders DC 84 null and void. The true doctrine of Priesthood Power is inseparably connected with Priesthood Authority. The power of the Priesthood comes in what God grants to a righteous man. The Authority of the Priesthood gives man the authority to flip the light switch in a room from off/on. The Power of the Priesthood comes with God turns the lights on.

The current apostate leadership is teaching that basically anytime anyone prays

that the lights are turned on that person is operating under Priesthood Power. Totally false doctrine.

Mark my words, in 20 years women will have the "Priesthood", fat chance we get an addition to DC on it.

What has been previously taught, is that women gain access to Priesthod Power and Authority through their husband's Priesthood. But now b/c we are so "woke" in the Church, men don't mean squat.

I don't think the Church survives in it's current form in 20 years. One thing that has always served the Church well to maintain it's cohesive structure over the last 200 years has been it's rigid hierarchy. Very few Churches are able to maintain themselves as a large cohesive structure for hundreds of years. Most split off. Amazingly the Church has largely avoided this problem, while their have been break-offs, they don't last long and the largest has ~200,000 members.

The Church needs to split (and work on a way to split up resources too); so the liberals can have their party and the more conservative members can have their party too. This current arrangement . . .not gonna last. The UMC allows congregations that split to actually keep their buildings.

We have become like all other Church's, we have wonderful claims (and I love them), but the last time a President of the Church proclaimed to all the world he had seen Christ in no uncertain terms . . .well it's been a loooong while.

Elder Bednar said something very profound in April GC:
As a child, Joseph Smith learned of God from his family. His efforts to discover God’s will for him caused Joseph to search for the truth among many different Christian denominations, ponder diligently the scriptures, and pray sincerely to God. As young Joseph Smith returned to his home from the Sacred Grove immediately after the appearance of the Father and the Son, he spoke first with his mother. As he “leaned up to the fireplace, [his] mother inquired what the matter was. [Joseph] replied, ‘Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.’ [He] then said to [his] mother, ‘I have learned for myself.’”3 Joseph’s experience provides a powerful pattern of learning that each of us should emulate. We too need to learn for ourselves.

When was the last time an Apostle or Prophet "learned for himself"? Been a loooong while.
Have you ever been in a women’s initiatory?! I’m not saying women will ever get priesthood keys. I do not believe that. But we are endowed with priesthood power and yes it is through the priesthood office which the men hold. They are saying essentially the same thing as you. We hold callings and work in the church because of priesthood power which has been given us through priesthood blessings issuing us the call. This has always been the way and will continue to be the way.
???
I really don't get what you are saying. Are you referencing the actual blessing or b/c a woman does the annointing?

If you are referring to the ability of women to annoint, well that a special case b/c it would be really uncomfortable for a man to annoint a woman and the woman is specifically given that for a specific instance to do a specific job. It is not broad, it is very limited due to simple logistics.

Having a blessing (which is what the initiatory is) doesn't give you priesthood power. It is simply an advanced blessing. What the leadership is saying is that the blessing gives your priesthood power and anytime a woman acts in the Church she is acting by priesthood power-totally false.

The Priesthood Authority and Power is very specific, read DC 84, 20, etc. It doesn't mean each and every time someone does something good in the Church it is by the priesthood authority or by priesthood power-which is the new definition.

I've been a member for quite a while now, I was a missionary, I know what I'm talking about, this is a new definition which is not supported by scripture nor previous teachings nor doctrine.

The Priesthood is very specific- it relates to specific offices in the Church which require specific duties to be performed. It also relates to specific ordinances or acts which are to be performed. The "Power" of the Priesthood is God confirming that the specific act that a Priesthood holder is performing is of God, that happens either through the fulfillment of a blessing or by the Holy Ghost. The Power of the Melc. Priesthood is directly related to the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood-which everyone has seemingly forgotten.

"And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;"

The Oath and Covenant specifically details what the power of the Priesthood is. Basically it's that if a man abides by the oath of the Priesthood, God will honor-i.e. give power, to the acts of that man by the Priesthood.

It is just mind-boggling to me how much has been lost in my lifetime (I'm not that old), members don't have a basic understanding of their own religion. Stunning.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:52 am
by dezNatDefender
Cc07 wrote: May 8th, 2019, 9:30 am Women have been endowed with priesthood power and once women can realize the significance of that they won’t begging to hold priesthood keys or set apart to hold the priesthood.
Totally false; endowed with priesthood power??? This is completely new verbage to signify the actual endowment? That's not endowed with priesthood power. If that is endowed with priesthood power, then so is a baptism. So is any ordinance.

People have been taught for centuries about the endowment, but no one has used the term endowed with priesthood power to conflate receiving an endowment by virtue of the Priesthood that gives an additional blessing from God. It's endowment with a Godly blessing, not with power.

The whole terminology is jacked up. Women endowed with power, the endowment isn't about priesthood power, it's about priesthood blessings. And there is a yuuuuge difference.

There is no way with the verbage that women have been endowed with priesthood power (which is false) that they won't be "begging for priesthood keys or to hold the priesthood".

Of course they will, why . . . because it's about power vs. blessings. One cannot have priesthood power without priesthood authority. One can have priesthood blessings without priesthood authority. And if one is convinced they have priesthood power without the authority then either the authority will be rendered null and void or those who claim they have priesthood power will want priesthood authority.

Power and authority are linked together.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 9:58 am
by dezNatDefender
https://keydifferences.com/difference-b ... ority.html

Look at the verbage.

By claiming women have "priesthood power", renders the term priesthood invalid. Because by putting the pre-fix priesthood it now means well anything

Amazingly enough lds.org still has the right definition:
https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng
There is a difference between the authority of the priesthood and the power of the priesthood. Priesthood authority comes from ordination. Power comes from personal righteousness.

A woman can't have priesthood power; she doesn't hold the priesthood so priesthood power is meaningless.

If you mean that women have power from God and that power from God is called priesthood and that power from God doesn't require an ordination, then you have just destroyed any meaningful usage of the term "priesthood". Because now I can turn it around and say, any person (man, woman, child) can have power from God and that power is called priesthood and it doesn't require an ordination.

With this type of muddying the waters, the Church won't survive. It can't, it will fracture.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 10:39 am
by Zathura
dezNatDefender wrote: May 6th, 2019, 8:33 pm
Stahura wrote: May 6th, 2019, 7:36 pm
dezNatDefender wrote: May 6th, 2019, 6:28 pm
Stahura wrote: May 6th, 2019, 6:07 pm

so..... Joseph still thought a 1/4 or a 1/8th black person was still as black as a 10/10 black person and still gave him the priesthood, you're not really making a case for anything other than the case that Joseph still gave the priesthood to people that he perceived as being black due to having *some* African blood in him.

In this context, it's really not important what *technically* constitutes as black, but what Joseph and Brigham *perceived* and believed to be black.

I don't think you're making the point you think you are.

What matters is their perception at the time, and that perception was that someone with a drop of african blood is still African. Regardless, Joseph was okay with him having the priesthood, but Brigham and those who followed were not okay with a drop of african blood and the ban was instituted not by Joseph but by Brigham and that ban applied to those who had but a trace of African blood.
And you aren't understanding the point either.

There is no record that Joseph Smith said he ordained a black man. You won't find it. Let's get that straight. Joseph Smith never claimed to have ordained a black man. We don't know what Joseph Smith thought about Elijah Abel-only that he did ordain him.

I agree that it is important what JS perceived to be black, 100% agree with that. The problem is that any and every source I can find just infers what Joseph Smith thought about Abel b/c the person reporting from the source claims Abel was black.

I've read the actual source document justification for Abel being ordained (not what other people say, or reported, i.e. the telephone game), but the only actual source that we have. It just states he was an octoroon and that Joseph Smith ordained him-it give nothing in the way of what Joseph Smith thought about Abel (whether he was black or not-it simply states he was an octoroon).

The other 2 instances of actual pure black being ordained were not done by Joseph Smith, one by his brother and the other one is actually very sketchy in the records.

I have a huge problem with history and people reporting it; I learned a long time ago man can do one thing God cannot do and that's rewrite history.

So much of what we "think" is true history is actually not true or it's oral stories or some historian that goes through the source material and then takes his own personal bias and bends the story the way he wants it to go.

We really don't have any information about JS and black and priesthood ordination, we only know what happened. And the only thing we can really state in the historical record is that yes JS ordained Abel to the Priesthood. Abel was indeed 1/8th black. We also know that JS translated the PoGP and in that Holy Scripture it describes the seed of Cain (or blacks as commonly understood at the time) as not having the Priesthood.

If one is dishonest,or lackadaisical, or wants to paint a certain picture with the historical record, one will claim Elijah Abel was black and that JS ordained black men. If one is accurate, one will say JS ordained Abel who was an octoroon. Whether JS considered an octoroon to be black or considered him to be European or something else we do not know.

Just a little more umph to the idea that 1/8th is can legitimately claim their majority heritage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criollo_people
"According to the Casta system, a criollo could have up to 1/8 (one great-grandparent or equivalent) Amerindian ancestry without losing social place"

The Spanish Caste system made allowance that if one was 1/8th not Spanish, one could still claim their heritage as Spanish.
We can confirm that yes, Joseph ordained a man that, by seemingly everyone else in the church was viewed as a straight black man

Regardless of the fact that he never *SAID* he ordained a black man, we know he ordained a man who was apparently universally recognized as a black man by everyone around Joseph Smith. This is important.
I disagree. We extrapolate our current views on race to how we think people thought back in the day but it's just not the case.
--------
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01 ... ntroversy/

When the census began in 1790, the racial categories for the household population were “free white” persons, other “free persons” by color, and “slaves.” Census-takers did not use standard forms in the early censuses.

For 1850-1880, the codes for enumerators were generally white (W), black (B) and mulatto (M). Beginning in 1850, the data item was labeled “color.” In 1870, Chinese (C) and Indian (I) were added. In 1880, the data item was not labeled; it was “whether this person is…” In 1890, “Japanese,” “quadroon” and “octoroon” were added."
----------
It's not so simple as "JS thought he was black". In 1850 the US Census recognized mulattos-i.e. mixed race.

Go to Family Search, look in the 1860 Census record and you will find Elijah Abel listed as mulatto; not black but mulatto.

Clearly he was NOT black; the US government did not consider him black, he did not consider himself black-but 160 years later modern "scholars" and people who want to use him to justify to themselves that JS did not institute the Priesthood ban claim he was black.

The best we can say is that once someone was around 1/8th black, JS considered that they were able to hold the Priesthood; that's a fair and accurate reading of the actions of history. Claiming that JS believed that someone who was 100% (or 50+1%) black was able to hold the Priesthood is a gross, gross extrapolation from one single incident.

"The best we can say" is actually a lot more than what you said.

The best we can say is this:

He was told to preach to "His own People"(Aka BLACK PEOPLE)
Historian’s Office Minutes and Reports (local units), 1840-1886, Ohio, 1843-1844, CR 100 589, box 1, folder 11, images 3-7, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts.
https://catalog.lds.org/assets/51bed8a2 ... 4db51e/0/2

He was denied the blessing of being sealed in the Temple by 2 Church Presidents because of his "race". His priesthood ordination was literally believed to be a mistake that Joseph Smith made that was corrected by Brigham Young.
L. John Nuttall, diary, vol. 1 (Dec. 1876 – Mar. 1884), typescript, 290-293

His Patriarchal blessing: His lineage was declared to be.. NONE. He was declared an ORPHAN. He was blessed to one day become WHITE and EQUAL to his brethren. I'm not saying that God says he's black, this is saying that clearly Joseph Smith Sr. considered him black
Patriarchal Blessing of Elijah Abel, c. 1836, recorded by W. A. Cowdery with penned preamble, "[Patriarchal] Blessing of Elijah Able [sic] who was born in Frederick County, Maryland, July 25th 1808." "Joseph Smith’s Patriarchal Blessing Record" (1833-1843), 88. LDS Church Archives.

^^^^ THAT GUY is the guy that Joseph Smith ordained to the priesthood, but nobody else in the church was down for. THAT is all we know.


Look, props to you for doing your research AND including sources. However, you take a hit to your credibility by not acknowledging what I'm showing you.

Again, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thought, the LDS people had their own society.
Most of the laws regarding "One drop" happened after the 1860s, and some of them applied to "Octaroons". The fact that these laws were eventually created should suggest that everyone all along considered quadroons and octaroons as fully black anyway, they just didn't find it necessary to create those racist laws until later.

Again , we are in agreement when we say that what really matters what Joseph and Brigham and John Taylor etc. thought, not the laws of the land.
Although we can't know Joseph's thoughts, we do know the thoughts and actions of many others who lived and served with Joseph Smith and it's clear they considered Elijah Abel as being a black man and they thought that Joseph made a mistake in ordaining Elijah because of his race.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 10:51 am
by dezNatDefender
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:39 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 6th, 2019, 8:33 pm
Stahura wrote: May 6th, 2019, 7:36 pm
dezNatDefender wrote: May 6th, 2019, 6:28 pm
And you aren't understanding the point either.

There is no record that Joseph Smith said he ordained a black man. You won't find it. Let's get that straight. Joseph Smith never claimed to have ordained a black man. We don't know what Joseph Smith thought about Elijah Abel-only that he did ordain him.

I agree that it is important what JS perceived to be black, 100% agree with that. The problem is that any and every source I can find just infers what Joseph Smith thought about Abel b/c the person reporting from the source claims Abel was black.

I've read the actual source document justification for Abel being ordained (not what other people say, or reported, i.e. the telephone game), but the only actual source that we have. It just states he was an octoroon and that Joseph Smith ordained him-it give nothing in the way of what Joseph Smith thought about Abel (whether he was black or not-it simply states he was an octoroon).

The other 2 instances of actual pure black being ordained were not done by Joseph Smith, one by his brother and the other one is actually very sketchy in the records.

I have a huge problem with history and people reporting it; I learned a long time ago man can do one thing God cannot do and that's rewrite history.

So much of what we "think" is true history is actually not true or it's oral stories or some historian that goes through the source material and then takes his own personal bias and bends the story the way he wants it to go.

We really don't have any information about JS and black and priesthood ordination, we only know what happened. And the only thing we can really state in the historical record is that yes JS ordained Abel to the Priesthood. Abel was indeed 1/8th black. We also know that JS translated the PoGP and in that Holy Scripture it describes the seed of Cain (or blacks as commonly understood at the time) as not having the Priesthood.

If one is dishonest,or lackadaisical, or wants to paint a certain picture with the historical record, one will claim Elijah Abel was black and that JS ordained black men. If one is accurate, one will say JS ordained Abel who was an octoroon. Whether JS considered an octoroon to be black or considered him to be European or something else we do not know.

Just a little more umph to the idea that 1/8th is can legitimately claim their majority heritage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criollo_people
"According to the Casta system, a criollo could have up to 1/8 (one great-grandparent or equivalent) Amerindian ancestry without losing social place"

The Spanish Caste system made allowance that if one was 1/8th not Spanish, one could still claim their heritage as Spanish.
We can confirm that yes, Joseph ordained a man that, by seemingly everyone else in the church was viewed as a straight black man

Regardless of the fact that he never *SAID* he ordained a black man, we know he ordained a man who was apparently universally recognized as a black man by everyone around Joseph Smith. This is important.
I disagree. We extrapolate our current views on race to how we think people thought back in the day but it's just not the case.
--------
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01 ... ntroversy/

When the census began in 1790, the racial categories for the household population were “free white” persons, other “free persons” by color, and “slaves.” Census-takers did not use standard forms in the early censuses.

For 1850-1880, the codes for enumerators were generally white (W), black (B) and mulatto (M). Beginning in 1850, the data item was labeled “color.” In 1870, Chinese (C) and Indian (I) were added. In 1880, the data item was not labeled; it was “whether this person is…” In 1890, “Japanese,” “quadroon” and “octoroon” were added."
----------
It's not so simple as "JS thought he was black". In 1850 the US Census recognized mulattos-i.e. mixed race.

Go to Family Search, look in the 1860 Census record and you will find Elijah Abel listed as mulatto; not black but mulatto.

Clearly he was NOT black; the US government did not consider him black, he did not consider himself black-but 160 years later modern "scholars" and people who want to use him to justify to themselves that JS did not institute the Priesthood ban claim he was black.

The best we can say is that once someone was around 1/8th black, JS considered that they were able to hold the Priesthood; that's a fair and accurate reading of the actions of history. Claiming that JS believed that someone who was 100% (or 50+1%) black was able to hold the Priesthood is a gross, gross extrapolation from one single incident.

"The best we can say" is actually a lot more than what you said.

The best we can say is this:

He was told to preach to "His own People"(Aka BLACK PEOPLE)
Historian’s Office Minutes and Reports (local units), 1840-1886, Ohio, 1843-1844, CR 100 589, box 1, folder 11, images 3-7, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts.
https://catalog.lds.org/assets/51bed8a2 ... 4db51e/0/2

He was denied the blessing of being sealed in the Temple by 2 Church Presidents because of his "race". His priesthood ordination was literally believed to be a mistake that Joseph Smith made that was corrected by Brigham Young.
L. John Nuttall, diary, vol. 1 (Dec. 1876 – Mar. 1884), typescript, 290-293

His Patriarchal blessing: His lineage was declared to be.. NONE. He was declared an ORPHAN. He was blessed to one day become WHITE and EQUAL to his brethren. I'm not saying that God says he's black, this is saying that clearly Joseph Smith Sr. considered him black
Patriarchal Blessing of Elijah Abel, c. 1836, recorded by W. A. Cowdery with penned preamble, "[Patriarchal] Blessing of Elijah Able [sic] who was born in Frederick County, Maryland, July 25th 1808." "Joseph Smith’s Patriarchal Blessing Record" (1833-1843), 88. LDS Church Archives.

^^^^ THAT GUY is the guy that Joseph Smith ordained to the priesthood, but nobody else in the church was down for. THAT is all we know.


Look, props to you for doing your research AND including sources. However, you take a hit to your credibility by not acknowledging what I'm showing you.

Again, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thought, the LDS people had their own society.
Most of the laws regarding "One drop" happened after the 1860s, and some of them applied to "Octaroons". The fact that these laws were eventually created should suggest that everyone all along considered quadroons and octaroons as fully black anyway, they just didn't find it necessary to create those racist laws until later.

Again , we are in agreement when we say that what really matters what Joseph and Brigham and John Taylor etc. thought, not the laws of the land.
Although we can't know Joseph's thoughts, we do know the thoughts and actions of many others who lived and served with Joseph Smith and it's clear they considered Elijah Abel as being a black man and they thought that Joseph made a mistake in ordaining Elijah because of his race.
I'll take a look at your sources and respond. One thing I have noticed is that the link to the source is to a document written in cursive with no digital translation. Did you transcribe it yourself or copy and paste from some website?

Many times the actual source document read in full is much different than the summarized view with hacked up quotes. How many times today do news articles do the exact same thing.

Like I said before, man can do what God can't do-rewrite history. And I've read enough historical documents to know that what the truth is (at least according to documents) and what is reported as truth (according to others) sometimes is wildly different.

But yes we do agree . . .what did JS think. On that we have no information, only conjecture.

On first glance the linked page does not say what you claim it says . . but I'll have to go through it better.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 10:52 am
by Gage
"Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood."

I read this earlier, I think this statement sums up why some of us disagree.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 10:55 am
by dezNatDefender
Gage wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:52 am "Latter-day Saints and others often mistakenly equate priesthood with religious office and the men who hold it, which obscures the broader Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood."

I read this earlier, I think this statement sums up why some of us disagree.
Which is what exactly? Please enlighten me. Stop dancing around the issue and clearly explain what exactly is the "broader LDS concept of priesthood". I understand this is a quote from an Apostle, but they don't speak too clearly today . . .unfortunately.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:04 am
by Zathura
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:51 am
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:39 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 6th, 2019, 8:33 pm
Stahura wrote: May 6th, 2019, 7:36 pm
We can confirm that yes, Joseph ordained a man that, by seemingly everyone else in the church was viewed as a straight black man

Regardless of the fact that he never *SAID* he ordained a black man, we know he ordained a man who was apparently universally recognized as a black man by everyone around Joseph Smith. This is important.
I disagree. We extrapolate our current views on race to how we think people thought back in the day but it's just not the case.
--------
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01 ... ntroversy/

When the census began in 1790, the racial categories for the household population were “free white” persons, other “free persons” by color, and “slaves.” Census-takers did not use standard forms in the early censuses.

For 1850-1880, the codes for enumerators were generally white (W), black (B) and mulatto (M). Beginning in 1850, the data item was labeled “color.” In 1870, Chinese (C) and Indian (I) were added. In 1880, the data item was not labeled; it was “whether this person is…” In 1890, “Japanese,” “quadroon” and “octoroon” were added."
----------
It's not so simple as "JS thought he was black". In 1850 the US Census recognized mulattos-i.e. mixed race.

Go to Family Search, look in the 1860 Census record and you will find Elijah Abel listed as mulatto; not black but mulatto.

Clearly he was NOT black; the US government did not consider him black, he did not consider himself black-but 160 years later modern "scholars" and people who want to use him to justify to themselves that JS did not institute the Priesthood ban claim he was black.

The best we can say is that once someone was around 1/8th black, JS considered that they were able to hold the Priesthood; that's a fair and accurate reading of the actions of history. Claiming that JS believed that someone who was 100% (or 50+1%) black was able to hold the Priesthood is a gross, gross extrapolation from one single incident.

"The best we can say" is actually a lot more than what you said.

The best we can say is this:

He was told to preach to "His own People"(Aka BLACK PEOPLE)
Historian’s Office Minutes and Reports (local units), 1840-1886, Ohio, 1843-1844, CR 100 589, box 1, folder 11, images 3-7, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts.
https://catalog.lds.org/assets/51bed8a2 ... 4db51e/0/2

He was denied the blessing of being sealed in the Temple by 2 Church Presidents because of his "race". His priesthood ordination was literally believed to be a mistake that Joseph Smith made that was corrected by Brigham Young.
L. John Nuttall, diary, vol. 1 (Dec. 1876 – Mar. 1884), typescript, 290-293

His Patriarchal blessing: His lineage was declared to be.. NONE. He was declared an ORPHAN. He was blessed to one day become WHITE and EQUAL to his brethren. I'm not saying that God says he's black, this is saying that clearly Joseph Smith Sr. considered him black
Patriarchal Blessing of Elijah Abel, c. 1836, recorded by W. A. Cowdery with penned preamble, "[Patriarchal] Blessing of Elijah Able [sic] who was born in Frederick County, Maryland, July 25th 1808." "Joseph Smith’s Patriarchal Blessing Record" (1833-1843), 88. LDS Church Archives.

^^^^ THAT GUY is the guy that Joseph Smith ordained to the priesthood, but nobody else in the church was down for. THAT is all we know.


Look, props to you for doing your research AND including sources. However, you take a hit to your credibility by not acknowledging what I'm showing you.

Again, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thought, the LDS people had their own society.
Most of the laws regarding "One drop" happened after the 1860s, and some of them applied to "Octaroons". The fact that these laws were eventually created should suggest that everyone all along considered quadroons and octaroons as fully black anyway, they just didn't find it necessary to create those racist laws until later.

Again , we are in agreement when we say that what really matters what Joseph and Brigham and John Taylor etc. thought, not the laws of the land.
Although we can't know Joseph's thoughts, we do know the thoughts and actions of many others who lived and served with Joseph Smith and it's clear they considered Elijah Abel as being a black man and they thought that Joseph made a mistake in ordaining Elijah because of his race.
I'll take a look at your sources and respond. One thing I have noticed is that the link to the source is to a document written in cursive with no digital translation. Did you transcribe it yourself or copy and paste from some website?

Many times the actual source document read in full is much different than the summarized view with hacked up quotes. How many times today do news articles do the exact same thing.

Like I said before, man can do what God can't do-rewrite history. And I've read enough historical documents to know that what the truth is (at least according to documents) and what is reported as truth (according to others) sometimes is wildly different.

But yes we do agree . . .what did JS think. On that we have no information, only conjecture.

On first glance the linked page does not say what you claim it says . . but I'll have to go through it better.
I originally noted down this source and went through it awhile ago, In my notes I only have written that on page 7/12 it says:

"Bro Able's was advised to visit the coloured population" ( I just checked, it's there on page 7/12 in the middle)

I'm looking at it again to look for Elder Page's part.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:10 am
by dezNatDefender
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:04 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:51 am
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:39 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 6th, 2019, 8:33 pm
I disagree. We extrapolate our current views on race to how we think people thought back in the day but it's just not the case.
--------
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01 ... ntroversy/

When the census began in 1790, the racial categories for the household population were “free white” persons, other “free persons” by color, and “slaves.” Census-takers did not use standard forms in the early censuses.

For 1850-1880, the codes for enumerators were generally white (W), black (B) and mulatto (M). Beginning in 1850, the data item was labeled “color.” In 1870, Chinese (C) and Indian (I) were added. In 1880, the data item was not labeled; it was “whether this person is…” In 1890, “Japanese,” “quadroon” and “octoroon” were added."
----------
It's not so simple as "JS thought he was black". In 1850 the US Census recognized mulattos-i.e. mixed race.

Go to Family Search, look in the 1860 Census record and you will find Elijah Abel listed as mulatto; not black but mulatto.

Clearly he was NOT black; the US government did not consider him black, he did not consider himself black-but 160 years later modern "scholars" and people who want to use him to justify to themselves that JS did not institute the Priesthood ban claim he was black.

The best we can say is that once someone was around 1/8th black, JS considered that they were able to hold the Priesthood; that's a fair and accurate reading of the actions of history. Claiming that JS believed that someone who was 100% (or 50+1%) black was able to hold the Priesthood is a gross, gross extrapolation from one single incident.

"The best we can say" is actually a lot more than what you said.

The best we can say is this:

He was told to preach to "His own People"(Aka BLACK PEOPLE)
Historian’s Office Minutes and Reports (local units), 1840-1886, Ohio, 1843-1844, CR 100 589, box 1, folder 11, images 3-7, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts.
https://catalog.lds.org/assets/51bed8a2 ... 4db51e/0/2

He was denied the blessing of being sealed in the Temple by 2 Church Presidents because of his "race". His priesthood ordination was literally believed to be a mistake that Joseph Smith made that was corrected by Brigham Young.
L. John Nuttall, diary, vol. 1 (Dec. 1876 – Mar. 1884), typescript, 290-293

His Patriarchal blessing: His lineage was declared to be.. NONE. He was declared an ORPHAN. He was blessed to one day become WHITE and EQUAL to his brethren. I'm not saying that God says he's black, this is saying that clearly Joseph Smith Sr. considered him black
Patriarchal Blessing of Elijah Abel, c. 1836, recorded by W. A. Cowdery with penned preamble, "[Patriarchal] Blessing of Elijah Able [sic] who was born in Frederick County, Maryland, July 25th 1808." "Joseph Smith’s Patriarchal Blessing Record" (1833-1843), 88. LDS Church Archives.

^^^^ THAT GUY is the guy that Joseph Smith ordained to the priesthood, but nobody else in the church was down for. THAT is all we know.


Look, props to you for doing your research AND including sources. However, you take a hit to your credibility by not acknowledging what I'm showing you.

Again, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thought, the LDS people had their own society.
Most of the laws regarding "One drop" happened after the 1860s, and some of them applied to "Octaroons". The fact that these laws were eventually created should suggest that everyone all along considered quadroons and octaroons as fully black anyway, they just didn't find it necessary to create those racist laws until later.

Again , we are in agreement when we say that what really matters what Joseph and Brigham and John Taylor etc. thought, not the laws of the land.
Although we can't know Joseph's thoughts, we do know the thoughts and actions of many others who lived and served with Joseph Smith and it's clear they considered Elijah Abel as being a black man and they thought that Joseph made a mistake in ordaining Elijah because of his race.
I'll take a look at your sources and respond. One thing I have noticed is that the link to the source is to a document written in cursive with no digital translation. Did you transcribe it yourself or copy and paste from some website?

Many times the actual source document read in full is much different than the summarized view with hacked up quotes. How many times today do news articles do the exact same thing.

Like I said before, man can do what God can't do-rewrite history. And I've read enough historical documents to know that what the truth is (at least according to documents) and what is reported as truth (according to others) sometimes is wildly different.

But yes we do agree . . .what did JS think. On that we have no information, only conjecture.

On first glance the linked page does not say what you claim it says . . but I'll have to go through it better.
I originally noted down this source and went through it awhile ago, In my notes I only have written that on page 7/12 it says:

"Bro Able's was advised to visit the coloured population" ( I just checked, it's there on page 7/12 in the middle)

I'm looking at it again to look for Elder Page's part.
That's cool, I understand, going through source documents is really tough.
Your interpretation of your quote is that well people considered him to be black. But that's not what your quote states.

If someone was a quarter Indian, it would be a logical thing to for that person to preach the gospel to the Indians. But that doesn't mean that person would be considered to be an Indian. So what if he was "advised to visit the coloured population", that doesn't mean Abel was considered to be a "coloured". He was mixed blood and what better person to preach to the coloured population that someone who is mixed.
Mixed != black.

I'd have to see the rest of the quote to see if there is any other meaning out of it.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:12 am
by Zathura
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:51 am
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:39 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 6th, 2019, 8:33 pm
Stahura wrote: May 6th, 2019, 7:36 pm
We can confirm that yes, Joseph ordained a man that, by seemingly everyone else in the church was viewed as a straight black man

Regardless of the fact that he never *SAID* he ordained a black man, we know he ordained a man who was apparently universally recognized as a black man by everyone around Joseph Smith. This is important.
I disagree. We extrapolate our current views on race to how we think people thought back in the day but it's just not the case.
--------
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01 ... ntroversy/

When the census began in 1790, the racial categories for the household population were “free white” persons, other “free persons” by color, and “slaves.” Census-takers did not use standard forms in the early censuses.

For 1850-1880, the codes for enumerators were generally white (W), black (B) and mulatto (M). Beginning in 1850, the data item was labeled “color.” In 1870, Chinese (C) and Indian (I) were added. In 1880, the data item was not labeled; it was “whether this person is…” In 1890, “Japanese,” “quadroon” and “octoroon” were added."
----------
It's not so simple as "JS thought he was black". In 1850 the US Census recognized mulattos-i.e. mixed race.

Go to Family Search, look in the 1860 Census record and you will find Elijah Abel listed as mulatto; not black but mulatto.

Clearly he was NOT black; the US government did not consider him black, he did not consider himself black-but 160 years later modern "scholars" and people who want to use him to justify to themselves that JS did not institute the Priesthood ban claim he was black.

The best we can say is that once someone was around 1/8th black, JS considered that they were able to hold the Priesthood; that's a fair and accurate reading of the actions of history. Claiming that JS believed that someone who was 100% (or 50+1%) black was able to hold the Priesthood is a gross, gross extrapolation from one single incident.

"The best we can say" is actually a lot more than what you said.

The best we can say is this:

He was told to preach to "His own People"(Aka BLACK PEOPLE)
Historian’s Office Minutes and Reports (local units), 1840-1886, Ohio, 1843-1844, CR 100 589, box 1, folder 11, images 3-7, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts.
https://catalog.lds.org/assets/51bed8a2 ... 4db51e/0/2

He was denied the blessing of being sealed in the Temple by 2 Church Presidents because of his "race". His priesthood ordination was literally believed to be a mistake that Joseph Smith made that was corrected by Brigham Young.
L. John Nuttall, diary, vol. 1 (Dec. 1876 – Mar. 1884), typescript, 290-293

His Patriarchal blessing: His lineage was declared to be.. NONE. He was declared an ORPHAN. He was blessed to one day become WHITE and EQUAL to his brethren. I'm not saying that God says he's black, this is saying that clearly Joseph Smith Sr. considered him black
Patriarchal Blessing of Elijah Abel, c. 1836, recorded by W. A. Cowdery with penned preamble, "[Patriarchal] Blessing of Elijah Able [sic] who was born in Frederick County, Maryland, July 25th 1808." "Joseph Smith’s Patriarchal Blessing Record" (1833-1843), 88. LDS Church Archives.

^^^^ THAT GUY is the guy that Joseph Smith ordained to the priesthood, but nobody else in the church was down for. THAT is all we know.


Look, props to you for doing your research AND including sources. However, you take a hit to your credibility by not acknowledging what I'm showing you.

Again, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thought, the LDS people had their own society.
Most of the laws regarding "One drop" happened after the 1860s, and some of them applied to "Octaroons". The fact that these laws were eventually created should suggest that everyone all along considered quadroons and octaroons as fully black anyway, they just didn't find it necessary to create those racist laws until later.

Again , we are in agreement when we say that what really matters what Joseph and Brigham and John Taylor etc. thought, not the laws of the land.
Although we can't know Joseph's thoughts, we do know the thoughts and actions of many others who lived and served with Joseph Smith and it's clear they considered Elijah Abel as being a black man and they thought that Joseph made a mistake in ordaining Elijah because of his race.
I'll take a look at your sources and respond. One thing I have noticed is that the link to the source is to a document written in cursive with no digital translation. Did you transcribe it yourself or copy and paste from some website?

Many times the actual source document read in full is much different than the summarized view with hacked up quotes. How many times today do news articles do the exact same thing.

Like I said before, man can do what God can't do-rewrite history. And I've read enough historical documents to know that what the truth is (at least according to documents) and what is reported as truth (according to others) sometimes is wildly different.

But yes we do agree . . .what did JS think. On that we have no information, only conjecture.

On first glance the linked page does not say what you claim it says . . but I'll have to go through it better.
Found the other part.

On page 5/12 near the bottom:

"Elder page said he respects a coloured Bro, as such but *unintelligible* forbids that *unintelligible* should introduce before the *unintelligible*"
"Elder A Pratt sustained the position of Bro. Page"
"Bro Ables said he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people and went to explain a circumstance that had recently ocurred"

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:12 am
by I AM
Both Jesus Christ and Isaiah foretell of our "Latter-Day" APOSTASY !

some here believe as I do that the scriptures show that history repeats itself.
"types and shadows"
"What has happened before, will happen again"
things that "have been and shall be"

Isaiah 44:7
7 "Who predicts what happens as do I, and is the equal of me in
appointing a people from of old as types, foretelling things to come?

Isaiah 46
10 I foretell the end from the beginning,
from ancient times things not yet done.
I speak, and my purposes take effect;
I accomplish all my will.

Isaiah 42
9 The prophecies of the former events
indeed came to pass,
but new things I yet foretell.
Before they spring up I declare them to you.

Isaiah uses what are called types from the past
to show the future.
What has happened before, will happen again.

Interesting how Jesus Christ Himself
gave us a commandment that we "search these things diligently"
3 Nephi 23:1- 4
1 "And now, behold, I say unto you,
that ye ought to search these things.
Yea, a commandment I give unto
you that ye search these things diligently;
for great are the words of Isaiah."


ALL THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH PERTAIN TO US TODAY
All prophecies in Isaiah are prophecies of the last days.

Also interesting how Isaiah chooses to start his book.

Referring to our church and the sad condition we are in,
Isaiah begins his book speaking to us,
Ephraim, or the church today.

Isaiah 1:2-4, 13,14
Description of modern Ephraim
(addressing our church he calls Israel)

2 Hear, O heavens! Give heed, O earth!
Jehovah has spoken:I have reared sons,
brought them up,but they have revolted against me.
3 The ox knows its owner,the @#$ its master’s stall,
but Israel does not know;my people are insensible.
4 Alas, a nation astray, a people weighed down by sin,
the offspring of wrongdoers, perverse children:
they have forsaken Jehovah, they have spurned
the Holy One of Israel, they have lapsed into APOSTASY.


http://www.isaiahexplained.com/1#commentary

http://www.isaiahexplained.com/28#commentary


Where much is given - much is required.
Most members don't realize or read the scriptures enough
to know that the restored Gospel is a great responsibility
that we haven't been able to live up to.
But the Lord (knowing we wouldn't ) gave us the same
chance as he gave them -The peoples of the Book of Mormon.
That's why we have the Book of Mormon and the church was restored.
But their book is also a book of warning for "us" and ALL the Gentiles - U.S.
they tried to warn us, but we don't heed their warnings
and have made the same mistakes as they did.

The scriptures foretell our future and the downfall
of this "choice land" that WILL fall -
just like it did for them in the Book of Mormon when they too fell into apostasy and forfeited their blessings to us- that is why the Lord brought His gospel to us -
that is why we have their book - to give us a chance and not make the same mistakes as they did.
But we HAVE made the same mistakes and are repeating their history.
"they, who for a time enjoyed the blessings of the restored Gospel," they will be destroyed with the Gentiles and cut off from the Lord."
So now we are forfeiting the blessings of the gospel
and they are going back to them.
Hence - the first will be last, and the last, first.


1. The church is in total APOSTASY.
2. We no longer receive revelation - and haven't for over 100 years.
3. Christ no longer leads the church - and it's leaders and members have
become as "Sodom; you people of Gomorrah!" (below)

*** and because of our APOSTASY, just as with ancient Israel,
now comes the Lord's judgments on His people - "us" the church.

1-2-3 you're out !
The Times of the Gentiles is coming to an end.

*** "And upon my house shall it begin"

D&C 112:24-26
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

D&C 45:28-31
28 And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;

29 BUT THEY RECEIVE IT NOT;
for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.


30 And in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

31 And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.isaiahexplained.com/1#commentary
Isaiah 1

10 Hear the word of Jehovah,
O leaders of Sodom;
give heed to the law of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!

To call Jehovah’s people and their leaders by the names Sodom and Gomorrah is to compare their moral degeneracy to that of those cities’ ancient inhabitants.
As the leaders of a people generally reflect the people themselves, and as the political and ecclesiastical leaders of Jehovah’s people parallel each other in the Book of Isaiah, their spiritual condition holds little hope for the rising generation.
When things reach that point, Jehovah’s people are fortunate indeed if Jehovah offers them a last warning. For those who accept it, there may yet be a chance of deliverance; otherwise, their destruction is assured.

Hear the word of Jehovah . . . give heed to the law of our God. Knowing that Jehovah does nothing unless he reveals his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7), he sends a warning voice before destroying his people. In the Book of Isaiah, that warning voice is Jehovah’s servant, of whom Isaiah is a type. Pointing them to Jehovah’s “law” and “word—to the terms of his covenant—the servant directs them to the one thing that has the power to reverse their circumstances. Replacing current aberrant religious practices with keeping Jehovah’s law and word remains his people’s only hope.



9 Had not Jehovah of Hosts left us a few survivors,
we should have been as Sodom,
or become like Gomorrah.

A type or precedent of the “few survivors” of Jehovah’s people who are “left” after the destruction are Lot and his two daughters who escaped God’s ancient destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:24-30). Representing a pattern of what happens in the end-time, when Jehovah sends his angels to escort Lot and his family out of Sodom, his sons-in-law consider it foolish while Lot’s wife looks back and perishes (Genesis 19:12-23; cf. Matthew 24:31).
The full authoritative title “Jehovah of Hosts” underscores the gravity of these events and the fact that Israel’s God is in charge of world affairs.

Sodom . . . Gomorrah. The names Sodom and Gomorrah remind us of those ancient cities and their inhabitants and what they came to symbolize. In their perverse lifestyle their residents grew so aggressive that they attempted to violate the angels of God who were Lot’s guests (Genesis 19:1-11).
Isaiah’s drawing on this type when predicting the end-time lets us know that once they lose God’s light his people start to resemble those ancient inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
When his people’s devotion to Jehovah becomes but a shallow version of his law and word, it lacks the power to withstand evil.


The names Sodom and Gomorrah additionally function as word links to Babylon: “And Babylon, the most splendid of kingdoms, the glory and pride of Chaldeans, shall be [thrown down] as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah” (Isaiah 13:19). Isaiah’s structurally developed concept of a Greater Babylon—resembling John’s “Babylon the Great”—identifies it as an evil world conglomerate on the eve of its destruction (Isaiah 13-23, 47; Revelation 17-18).
That a wicked majority of Jehovah’s people suffers the same fate Babylon does implies that it too has become identified with Babylon.

The idea of “cities burned with fire” that describes the destruction of Jehovah’s people (v 7) alludes to the desolation of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their residents by a hail of fire and brimstone
(Genesis 19:24-25; cf. Isaiah 32:19).
While the end-time version of that event may involve a similar cosmic cataclysm, Isaiah attributes the destruction of the world’s cities to the king of Assyria/Babylon (Isaiah 37:26). In view of modern weaponry’s ability to destroy entire cities in seconds, such technology in the hands of an archtyrant may thus account for Isaiah’s end-time scenario (Isaiah 9:18-19).

YES - I AM A SERVANT (A TYPE) OF THE LORD !
AND I AM GIVING YOU ! THIS WARNING !

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:14 am
by Zathura
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:10 am
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:04 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:51 am
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:39 am


"The best we can say" is actually a lot more than what you said.

The best we can say is this:

He was told to preach to "His own People"(Aka BLACK PEOPLE)
Historian’s Office Minutes and Reports (local units), 1840-1886, Ohio, 1843-1844, CR 100 589, box 1, folder 11, images 3-7, Church History Library, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.

After Able spoke at the branch conference, visiting Apostle, Elder John E. Page, commented that “he respects a coloured Bro, as such, but wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” Elder Orson Pratt “sustained” Page’s stance. Able responded that “he had no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” At the conclusion of the conference Able was “advised to visit the coloured population” in his preaching efforts.
https://catalog.lds.org/assets/51bed8a2 ... 4db51e/0/2

He was denied the blessing of being sealed in the Temple by 2 Church Presidents because of his "race". His priesthood ordination was literally believed to be a mistake that Joseph Smith made that was corrected by Brigham Young.
L. John Nuttall, diary, vol. 1 (Dec. 1876 – Mar. 1884), typescript, 290-293

His Patriarchal blessing: His lineage was declared to be.. NONE. He was declared an ORPHAN. He was blessed to one day become WHITE and EQUAL to his brethren. I'm not saying that God says he's black, this is saying that clearly Joseph Smith Sr. considered him black
Patriarchal Blessing of Elijah Abel, c. 1836, recorded by W. A. Cowdery with penned preamble, "[Patriarchal] Blessing of Elijah Able [sic] who was born in Frederick County, Maryland, July 25th 1808." "Joseph Smith’s Patriarchal Blessing Record" (1833-1843), 88. LDS Church Archives.

^^^^ THAT GUY is the guy that Joseph Smith ordained to the priesthood, but nobody else in the church was down for. THAT is all we know.


Look, props to you for doing your research AND including sources. However, you take a hit to your credibility by not acknowledging what I'm showing you.

Again, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thought, the LDS people had their own society.
Most of the laws regarding "One drop" happened after the 1860s, and some of them applied to "Octaroons". The fact that these laws were eventually created should suggest that everyone all along considered quadroons and octaroons as fully black anyway, they just didn't find it necessary to create those racist laws until later.

Again , we are in agreement when we say that what really matters what Joseph and Brigham and John Taylor etc. thought, not the laws of the land.
Although we can't know Joseph's thoughts, we do know the thoughts and actions of many others who lived and served with Joseph Smith and it's clear they considered Elijah Abel as being a black man and they thought that Joseph made a mistake in ordaining Elijah because of his race.
I'll take a look at your sources and respond. One thing I have noticed is that the link to the source is to a document written in cursive with no digital translation. Did you transcribe it yourself or copy and paste from some website?

Many times the actual source document read in full is much different than the summarized view with hacked up quotes. How many times today do news articles do the exact same thing.

Like I said before, man can do what God can't do-rewrite history. And I've read enough historical documents to know that what the truth is (at least according to documents) and what is reported as truth (according to others) sometimes is wildly different.

But yes we do agree . . .what did JS think. On that we have no information, only conjecture.

On first glance the linked page does not say what you claim it says . . but I'll have to go through it better.
I originally noted down this source and went through it awhile ago, In my notes I only have written that on page 7/12 it says:

"Bro Able's was advised to visit the coloured population" ( I just checked, it's there on page 7/12 in the middle)

I'm looking at it again to look for Elder Page's part.
That's cool, I understand, going through source documents is really tough.
Your interpretation of your quote is that well people considered him to be black. But that's not what your quote states.

If someone was a quarter Indian, it would be a logical thing to for that person to preach the gospel to the Indians. But that doesn't mean that person would be considered to be an Indian. So what if he was "advised to visit the coloured population", that doesn't mean Abel was considered to be a "coloured". He was mixed blood and what better person to preach to the coloured population that someone who is mixed.
Mixed != black.

I'd have to see the rest of the quote to see if there is any other meaning out of it.
I guess you're *technically* correct, I can't really say much in response to that.

My 2nd quote that I just shared above shows that Bro. Able would never consider himself equal with his brethren(White brethren). I don't actually know, were Indians and other "coloured" races not considered equal to whites in the same way blacks were not?

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:15 am
by Cc07
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 9:58 am https://keydifferences.com/difference-b ... ority.html

Look at the verbage.

By claiming women have "priesthood power", renders the term priesthood invalid. Because by putting the pre-fix priesthood it now means well anything

Amazingly enough lds.org still has the right definition:
https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng
There is a difference between the authority of the priesthood and the power of the priesthood. Priesthood authority comes from ordination. Power comes from personal righteousness.

A woman can't have priesthood power; she doesn't hold the priesthood so priesthood power is meaningless.

If you mean that women have power from God and that power from God is called priesthood and that power from God doesn't require an ordination, then you have just destroyed any meaningful usage of the term "priesthood". Because now I can turn it around and say, any person (man, woman, child) can have power from God and that power is called priesthood and it doesn't require an ordination.

With this type of muddying the waters, the Church won't survive. It can't, it will fracture.
And that definition clearly states the difference between priesthood authority which men hold and priesthood power which is given from men with authority to those that are righteous. Everyone is able to receive priesthood power through those with authority if they are righteous and worthy. I can not use priesthood authority but if I’m worthy I can receive priesthood power which is a gift from God to bless and help others. It’s given to everyone through the authority of priesthood holders.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:18 am
by Cc07
Men are the vessel to holding the priesthood which is Gods power to bless and strengthen others in receiving that power. Just as women are vessels to bear Gods children.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:23 am
by dezNatDefender
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:14 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:10 am
Stahura wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:04 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 10:51 am
I'll take a look at your sources and respond. One thing I have noticed is that the link to the source is to a document written in cursive with no digital translation. Did you transcribe it yourself or copy and paste from some website?

Many times the actual source document read in full is much different than the summarized view with hacked up quotes. How many times today do news articles do the exact same thing.

Like I said before, man can do what God can't do-rewrite history. And I've read enough historical documents to know that what the truth is (at least according to documents) and what is reported as truth (according to others) sometimes is wildly different.

But yes we do agree . . .what did JS think. On that we have no information, only conjecture.

On first glance the linked page does not say what you claim it says . . but I'll have to go through it better.
I originally noted down this source and went through it awhile ago, In my notes I only have written that on page 7/12 it says:

"Bro Able's was advised to visit the coloured population" ( I just checked, it's there on page 7/12 in the middle)

I'm looking at it again to look for Elder Page's part.
That's cool, I understand, going through source documents is really tough.
Your interpretation of your quote is that well people considered him to be black. But that's not what your quote states.

If someone was a quarter Indian, it would be a logical thing to for that person to preach the gospel to the Indians. But that doesn't mean that person would be considered to be an Indian. So what if he was "advised to visit the coloured population", that doesn't mean Abel was considered to be a "coloured". He was mixed blood and what better person to preach to the coloured population that someone who is mixed.
Mixed != black.

I'd have to see the rest of the quote to see if there is any other meaning out of it.
I guess you're *technically* correct, I can't really say much in response to that.

My 2nd quote that I just shared above shows that Bro. Able would never consider himself equal with his brethren(White brethren). I don't actually know, were Indians and other "coloured" races not considered equal to whites in the same way blacks were not?
I know Indians definitely weren't considered equal to whites, to the same degree as blacks-probably not; but you also have to remember it wasn't that long ago that the caste system was in place
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cl ... ed_Kingdom (early 1700s)

They probably weren't considered on the same degree b/c they couldn't be enslaved. This is hard for modern ears, but the colonizers originally tried to enslave Indians and they did, but it didn't work. No matter what they did, the Indians just wouldn't work-they would just starve and die, take beatings, etc. They just wouldn't work as slaves. But they were definitely not see on the same level as Europeans-that's for sure.

I would agree Bro. Able wouldn't consider himself equal or white, but he also didn't consider himself black. See 1860 Census. JS was IMO extremely compassionate to him, he recognized he was lost as far as his heritage-not accepted among whites and definitely not accepted among blacks. It's why he was declared an orphan. JS I think was trying to show him, look you aren't lost another generation or two and you posterity will be white (or even that he is white now)-I would consider Abel white and JS certainly considered him able to hold the priesthood. But he never ordained a black man, mulatto-yes, white-yes, black-no.

That's the point.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:25 am
by Cc07
When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.
Elder M. Russell Ballard

Why would God grant His power to only be used for men? He would not. That’s like saying only men can used Christ’s atonement.

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:26 am
by dezNatDefender
Cc07 wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:15 am
dezNatDefender wrote: May 8th, 2019, 9:58 am https://keydifferences.com/difference-b ... ority.html

Look at the verbage.

By claiming women have "priesthood power", renders the term priesthood invalid. Because by putting the pre-fix priesthood it now means well anything

Amazingly enough lds.org still has the right definition:
https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng
There is a difference between the authority of the priesthood and the power of the priesthood. Priesthood authority comes from ordination. Power comes from personal righteousness.

A woman can't have priesthood power; she doesn't hold the priesthood so priesthood power is meaningless.

If you mean that women have power from God and that power from God is called priesthood and that power from God doesn't require an ordination, then you have just destroyed any meaningful usage of the term "priesthood". Because now I can turn it around and say, any person (man, woman, child) can have power from God and that power is called priesthood and it doesn't require an ordination.

With this type of muddying the waters, the Church won't survive. It can't, it will fracture.
And that definition clearly states the difference between priesthood authority which men hold and priesthood power which is given from men with authority to those that are righteous. Everyone is able to receive priesthood blessings through those with authority if they are righteous and worthy. I can not use priesthood authority but if I’m worthy I can receive priesthood blessings which is a gift from God . It’s given to everyone through the authority of priesthood holders.
No, it's not priesthood power, it's priesthood blessings (Fixed it for ya!). There is a big difference.

Only in the last couple of years has priesthood blessings changed to priesthood power, which is incorrect.

Please tell me what priesthood power you have to "bless and help others"?

Re: We are witnessing a second great apostasy

Posted: May 8th, 2019, 11:32 am
by dezNatDefender
Cc07 wrote: May 8th, 2019, 11:25 am When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.
Elder M. Russell Ballard

Why would God grant his power to only be used for men? He would not. That’s like saying only men can used Christ’s atonement.
And Elder Ballard is wrong; this is a new terminology which has only recently come about.

Please tell me what "power" you get. In the temple you don't get "power", you get a blessing.
Blessing 1: Iniatory: This is an individual blessing, not power.
Blessing 2: The tokens of the Priesthood-that's not "power" but an individual blessing. Nothing in the actual tokens do anything "to bless and help others". It is an individual blessing.
Blessing 3: The New and Everlasting Covenant. It is a blessing of promise not power.

Women will get a corrupted priesthood b/c they think it's all about power.