We are witnessing a second great apostasy

[thestock]

I find it interesting that President Kimball commissioned Elder Bruce R. McConkie to specifically research all scriptures on how they related to the priesthood ban. As we all know McConkie was an expert at the scriptures and very conservative and dogmatic in his approach. Yet his conclusion to President Kimball was that there was no scriptural foundation to the ban.

I think the best source I have read recently for the above story is the new Leonard Arrington biography.

Careful. I h ave a hard time believing this is true. McConkie was a proponent and apologist of the ban most of his days.

Give me a day and I will dig back up some sources. I too was surprised, yet McConkie's well known about face and explanation after the revelation was also noteworthy.

Fascinating. I will be looking forward to what you come back with. Cheers.

[Juliet]

I do believe there is a hungering for the true word of God. But, people don't follow God until they see how bad it is not following God.

Everyone is quick to conclude that God's will is to oppress women because of how he set up the family. Ok, fine. Do it your way. In time you will see that just because God sets things up a certain does not mean He hates women. God has always been, is, and will always be for the best interests, the happiness, the well being, and promotion of women. It just so happens that women have a God given role and following it does bring a fullness of joy.

People get mad at God because they have no idea why things are the way they are and so when Satan whispers bad things about God, people listen because they simply don't know better. They trust the father of all lies and hold the true Father, our loving Creator at a distance.

This is the time of the wheat and the tares. I see a lot of straddling going on, people have to pick one side or the other.

[Zathura]

Boy Scouts
For many years they supported this program even after it allowed openly homosexual leaders and boys into the program, even girls and transgender scouts are now allowed. After announcing their leaving from the program, they openly cited that their reason for leaving had nothing to do with the radical, anti-Christian changes.

I am an Eagle Scout myself and as such I took the Oath to "to do my duty to God". You cannot follow and donate to the modern "Scouts BSA" program and still consider yourself doing your duty to God. A program sponsored by the church can only be valid when it upholds our teachings.

Valid criticism, I agree that the relationship should have been cut off much earlier.

Priesthood ban
Many members now believe that the Priesthood ban on black members was not a legitimate revelation from Joseph Smith, that it came from a bigoted Brigham Young.
Abraham 1:25-27 was clearly the modern revelation, and this was revealed through Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. Entire articles from the LDS owned Deseret News and even some general authorities bashed the ban as either bigoted by Brigham Young's racism, false doctrine, during the anniversary last year.

Joseph Smith supported the ban in his Abolisionist Letter to Oliver Cowdery, even quoting Scripture to defend it. Joseph backs up the Priesthood ban, as well as his opposition to the abolition of slavery with the original curse of Canaan which is well supported throughout the Bible:

"Trace the history of the world from this notable event, down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is effected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late, for their own good, that God can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel."

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and his words are true. We should not hide or repress these words. The "great power" Joseph refers to that would change this doctrine is President Kimball's 1978 revelation. Read Joseph's full letter here:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... 03Lw2X94jg

First off, the policy change on blacks and priesthood is one of the very few true revelations that I think God gave to the leaders of this church since Joseph Smith's death. Here is a thread I made about it awhile back.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41731&p=694462&hili ... ll#p694462

It absolutely was racist, it's blatant open racism.
The ban started in the 1850's(Joseph was long dead by then)
You may not be aware of the abundant evidence that Joseph did not treat or look at blacks anywhere near the same way that Brigham and Co did. He was an abolitionist amongst other things.

You need to remember that these are mortal men with their own weaknesses, they too are affected by culture. You can't expect if someone was TRULY in favor of blacks being equal to men in 1830 that they would have the exact same outlook on this topic as we do in 2019. He still clearly held some racist beliefs and tendencies, but his mindset was absolutely nothing like that of Brigham Young.

Male only missionary force
Article of Faith 5 says only men should be called. Females were never called by Joseph or Brigham, not until 1898. Jesus or the early Church never called female missionaries. Why? Because women should be focused on building a family, above all (addressed below), not proselytizing, which only Priesthood holders are allowed to do.
Ministering Program
This program is being run with the Elders and the Relief Society working as equal partners. Co-PPIs are sometimes being done in wards with the RS Presidency and EQ Presidency together. The Relief Society doesn't have the keys to do this!

Sorry, this is silly. There are a multitude of scriptures that use the word "Man" that are obviously meant to apply to the species "man" and not the gender "man". You stretch that scripture to mean what you want it to mean.
All who have the desire are called to serve.
My wife serve a mission and brought forth more fruit than any missionary to every pass through her mission, the Mission President shared this with the mission on multiple occasions. As she was serving God she felt the Spirit come upon her and fill her head to toe multiple times. God approved what she was doing, and you are wrong for suggesting otherwise.

Support and normalization of Homosexuality
mormonandgay.lds.org. They openly attacked Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for not serving gay marriage licenses. The Bible is clear from Genesis to Jude that homosexuality is abjectly wrong. Also D&C 132. The perpetuation throughout the church normalizing this behavior is absolutely sickening false doctrine.

We have people attending church cross-dressing, and gay youth making-out during Seminary breaks (yes, this has happened).

Most recently, the church now refuses to call gay marriage apostasy. How can this not be apostasy? The view of standard sin is I understand it, is a momentary mistake that you lapse in. Apostasy is the concept of open rebellion, choosing an evil pathas a life choice deliberately that takes you away from God in serious transgression. Choosing, accepting and contracting yourself in a homosexual marriage is exactly what this is and goes against the most fundamental building block of the Lord's kingdom: the family.

We might as well call every sin Apostasy then if you want us to abide by your definition. Everyone is guilty of Apostasy then.
It's a sexual sin, it should be called a sexual sin the same as fornication and adultery.

Support of Transgenderism and Nihilism
Elder Uchdorf wrote an article, "What is Truth" in The March 2017 Friend telling the parable of the Elephant to describe how it's impossible to know a person's true identity. An accompanying column described that this was about transgender sexuality and helping children to understand this. Putting this into a children's magazine, of all places, is sickeningly repulsive.

It's not as deep as you're making it out to be. There are real life people who's lives are turned upside down because of these things, I really don't have an issue with Elder Uchtdorf in this regard.

You need to post the "Accompanying Column" here, as that is the real damning "evidence" in your eyes. Don't bring something up if you won't post the source.

Disregard of The Family a Proclamation to the World
The other points speak for evidence of this, but for a local example, my own Sunday school class has had heated arguments about this sacred documents. Our instructor could not even get through the first couple paragraphs before several ward members began disagreeing with its teachings. Our own Bishop and stake President was in attendance and said nothing. With more and more members openly and publicly declaring their support for homosexuality, the warnings of this sacred document are more relevant than ever.

Valid concern

Supporting the Muslim Religion
Many church buildings, including my own, have been used to celebrate Ramadan with the Muslim community each Spring. One ward in Salt Lake City even had their paintings of Christ covered up in the Relief Society room so Muslims could pray. This is total blasphemy.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9chyo ... p=drivesdk

Ramadan is a celebration of Mohammad's First Vision with the Angel Gabriel. This is a false mockery of Joseph Smith's true First Vision!

Research the history of Islam. Mohammad was a vicious warlord, he conquered towns and territories, murdering the men and taking the women as sex slaves who refused to believe in his religion. To follow Islam is to follow this same tradition, and the numbers back this up. See the latest in killings in the name of Islam here. They're always in the hundreds every month.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/atta ... ?Yr=Last30

Sister Eubanks of the general relief society presidency, recently said at the United Nations that, "The best answer to Islamic extremism will be authentic Islam". Wrong! The best answer is always Faith in Jesus Christ! Why are we pushing people to support false doctrine and a false church? There is only one way: Christ, and we all promise at baptism to "stand as witnesses" to that way. Islam is the "church of the devil" and we should be fighting against it, not EVER supporting it. 1 Nephi 14:10

Yeah, this is messed up.

Allowing women to teach and run as Ward leaders
This has been around forever and is very obvious. Even a basic reading of the Bible shows in many, many places that women are to keep silence, learn at home, and not teach in church. There are numerous, not re-translated verses discussing this. Has there been a JST or a modern revelation showing these verses are false or mistranslated? Then why are they not being taught in Church?!

You clearly aren't aware of what Joseph's intentions regarding the Relief Society were. You should inform yourself, stop reading only things that confirm your biases. Joseph had a pretty grand vision for the Relief Society, and it was a hell of a lot more than just having them sit at home and cook and clean for lazy men who presume they have priesthood power.

Letting women be "equals" to men
Again, the Bible is clear on this. Peter says that women are "the weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7), and Paul discusses women being in subjection to her husband as the church is in subjection to Christ. There is no equality of gender in God's kingdom! Equality comes from Karl Marx, Lenin, Bolshevism, and Communism, NOT from God. This is what we fought over in the pre-existence! God choose Christ's path of choice and self determination, while the devil wanted an equal outcome for everyone. We are fighting this same fight today.

Women head coverings
Women don't cover their heads anymore. 1 Corinthians 5-6 teaches that women should have their heads covered. Early women in the church usually kept a bonnet or hat on their heads. The Bible is the Word of God, why don't we follow this anymore?

Guess what, Paul also had his own opinions.
You want to talk about all of these concerns? A FAR GREATER concern to me is that people like you believe as the Israelites did, and assume that dead works will save you. You think somehow the physical action of covering a woman's head will bring blessings upon us? You miss the purpose of all the symbols and ordinances. We gain nothing through dead works.

Disregard of the Scriptures
In recent years, it seems the Church is focusing only on Christ's life alone and the current prophet, as if anything else written in other scriptures or by past prophets is "less" or should be ignored. This includes the Book of Mormon's strong sense of using arms to defend yourself and capital punishment to take out treasonous or evil leaders.

The life and teachings of Jesus wasn't just in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Christ's teachings spans from Adam and Eve, to Moses, to Paul, to James, to Nephi, Alma, Captain Moroni, and Mormon, and through the modern prophets. ALL of these are the words of Christ and they are of equal weight. President Nelson's words are no more important or sacred as any other prophet.

I've heard on several occasions by members of my own ward that the words in the Bible are simply mis-translations (with no evidence to back this up) or were simply "customs" of the time. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." Article of Faith 8. Joseph Smith already gave us the re-translated verses. Outside of that, we should be following these words like our life depended on it.

Let me make this clear. Following a human being, and a human being alone is CULT-like mentality. Following a man, at the disregard of Scripture and the Holy Ghost like this is not the way Christ built this church. It never was.

Very Valid Concern

Politicking
The church is constantly visiting world leaders and speaking its political mind. They've been giving money to the United Nations including some of its subsidiary organizations like CARE (pushes homosexuality in children) and UNICEF (found to have been helping Boko Haram), and the Pope to bring in more immigrants. Christ avoided politics like the plague. "Render unto caesar...", he said, to avoid the topic. He refused to talk to Pilate, and constantly avoided paying taxes, telling his disciples how unjust tax collection is (Matt 17:24-27). The pharisees even used his tax avoidance (or perception of it) as justification for his capital punishment (Luke 23:2).

They've been collaborating with the NAACP. A radical group rife with corruption, that openly funded Black Lives matters to protest against police. They recently gave money to an NAACP-run welfare program.

The UN is a corrupt and evil organization. It idolizes Communism and one world government. To give and support his organization is evil in itself.

The love of money
The Church that is loaded with over 40 billion dollars claims to be the same one whose original founder, Jesus, road into Jerusalem on a donkey and taught to "take no thought for the morrow". I do believe that funds are necessary for the work to continue, but I think we've lost site of the spirit of this principle entirely. Members take Jacob's "seek ye the kingdom of God" scripture out of context to back this up, but seem to forget that there is literally no Scripture anywhere that talks about stockpiling mountains of cash for shopping malls, newspapers, and the other myriad of worldly businesses that church is invested in.

Our members have become deeply intertwined with the world, buying larger and larger homes, and seeking after more and more education and better careers. Utah leads the nation in per-capita pyramid schemes. Mitt Romney, the Huntsman family, and other big names are the face of our church now. Is this how Christ wanted us to be seen? As rich and well-connected, political princes?

Many have become obsessed with money, power, and fame. Our leaders seem obsessed with constantly meeting with government leaders, celebrations (concerts for gays, and birthday parties for the prophet?!), and cow-towing to the world's desire through our more politically correct advertising campaigns. We are no longer a peculiar people, we've become obsessed with getting a pat on the head by the world. This is undeniable.

"And when the spirit of persecution, the spirit of hatred, of wrath, and malice ceases in the world against this people, it will be the time that this people have apostatized and joined hands with the wicked, and never until then; which I pray may never come."
Brigham Young, May 31, 1857, JD 4:327

I don't believe it's possible anymore to "live in the world, but not of the world". We need to take more notice of groups like the Amish and Mennonites, who are living simple lives as the Savior taught, as far away from the world as possible.

Globalism
The church's image is trying to embody everybody, all races, genders, sexes, etc, etc. While Christ's Church should transcend borders, it does not even attempt to speak to everyone in their own "language". We are taught that the gospel should be brought to "every nation, kindred, tongue, and people", not turn everyone into a global conglomerate of sameness. It's more likely this is more anti-Trump mentality.

One-sided political commentary
The church only speaks out with its PR department to tout its values when it's against Donald Trump, or the Christian right, never to tout its values when it appears to be in support of Trump. For example, the Brett Kavanaugh hearings where one of the most fundamental of human rights, Due Proces,s was eviscerated by the Democrats. Not a peep from the Church. But Elder Oaks took time out to write a scathing article, trashing a few rural anti gay marriage clerks around the country.

The church often wades into political lecturing when it sides with the left-wing, but never for the other side. Where are the conference talks on people losing their free speech online, talking against the destructive #MeToo movement (including the reprehensible Kavanaugh hearing), Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Muslim violence in Europe (hundreds of Christian churches burned last year) etc? Not a peep, but "how dare a rural Kentucky female clerk not give marriage licenses to homosexuals!" This is completely backward!

Agreed

Anti-men
There is a general sense of anti-male, anti due process in church. My bishop said that any accusaton of abuse came to his attention, the FIRST thing he would do is call the police. This, before talking or counseling to anyone. How can anyone feel safe in taking a calling teaching children or youth when this mentality is being taken? I have already refused callings dealing with youth because of the chance that I could be falsely accused of something. I have no confidence that my church will back me up anymore.

Look at LDS.org right now. On any given day their are pro-women empowerment articles. There is a clear push to get women into male roles, and it comes directly from the top. LDS leaders have even gone so far to suggest that women already have the priesthood because they were called by someone with it. Absurd! Unless you are "conferred" the Priesthood by one having authority by the laying on of hands, you have no such Priesthood authority.

In a recent article, Associate Professor of Church History at BYU, Barbara Morgan Gardner said,
"When teaching this concept to my students, I often ask, “If a stake is having a joint Young Men and Young Women presidency meeting, who presides?” Because both the stake Young Women president and the stake Young Men president were called and set apart by one holding priesthood keys (the stake president), with their callings, both have the same priesthood authority and therefore neither presides over the other. It would make sense for them to take turns in conducting meetings."

This is complete false doctrine! D&C 20:44-45 clearly teaches that "the elders are to take the lead of all meetings" and there is absolutely no foundation for the statement that "both have the same priesthood authority".

This hasn't been my experience. I don't see the church as anti-men, I only see men upset that they can't tell their women what to do as if they are their possession rather than equal partners. I think the church is now doing a much better job in regards to women

Husband/Wife relationship
On Jan 1, 2019, the LDS Church removed the Temple covenant for wives to, "hearken to her husband as he hearken to the Lord". This is the worst one of all. This is absolutely a doctrinal change. How can it not be? Covenants in the temple are sealed in heaven! It also goes completely against Biblical teachings:

Most of the temple stuff people complain about about was added by Brigham, who by his own admission did not receive the revelations that Joseph and received and was not a prophet like Joseph. For that reason, I'm not sure it's a big deal that something was removed that really might not have been from God in the first place.

Again, culture, opinions absolutely influenced these views.
Look and Peter and Paul arguing about circumcision. They both thought they were right. Guess who was wrong? Peter, in this instance. Seems like they didn't disagree on the woman's place in the house, but how do you know they weren't both wrong like Peter was wrong about circumcision?

Clearly these guys did not KNOW all things, they too were capable of teaching commandments of men as Doctrines of God.

These modern pollutions in our own church was prophesied by Mormon:

"O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?"
Mormon 8:38

Amen

Polygamy

Polygamy is an abomination, always was. It is the beginning of all the problems that the church has today.

[EmmaLee]

I'm sorry that God's word throughout all of human history offends you by your modern worldly standards. But it is the truth, and something we should heed as such. Joseph Smith warned people they'd be under condemnation for interfering in this purpose.

No need to be sorry. God's word has never offended me.

As far as blacks and the priesthood - Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood.

[Mindfields]

In regards to Blacks and the Priesthood. Here's an interesting interview with Apostle LeGrande Richards.
 Interview with Apostle LeGrand Richards

By Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos

16th August 1978

Church Office Building

(Recorded on Cassette)

WALTERS: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I've heard all kinds of stories: I've heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had, had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?

RICHARDS: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it's hard to get leaders that don't have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. 

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray - and we did - that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office - individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, you see - so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. 

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday - we meet every Thursday - the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement - to see how we'd feel about it - and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it - the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

WALTERS: What was the date? Would that have been the first of June, or something?

RICHARDS: That was the first Thursday, I think, in May. [June?] At least that's about when it was. And then after we all voted in favor of it, we called another meeting for the next morning, Friday morning, at seven o'clock, of all the other General Authorities - that includes the Seventies' Quorum and the Patriarch and the Presiding Bishopric, and it was presented to them, and there were a few of the brethren that were out presiding then in the missions, and so the Twelve were appointed to interview each one of them.


It appears that LeGrande Richards didn't think it was a revelation and he was there. This is very contemporary information. Much better than peoples hearsay or 3rd hand remembrances.

[Phantom]

All the apostasy we want to see is right here in this thread.

[dezNatDefender]

That men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith lived in a world that tolerated slavery and felt the need to somehow justify it does NOT mean they were preaching the truth that these brothers and sisters are somehow lesser because of the color of their skin or their gender.

Joseph Smith wasn't a racist - at least not according to everything I've ever read about him, and most especially by looking at his works. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood. The racism, as part of the institutional Church, did not begin till BY took the reins.

Except that he didn't. If you look at the source material of the "black" men he ordained you will find that he ordained octoroons to the priesthood.

An octoroon is someone who had 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white or European decent. If you look at pictures of octoroons, it's hard to tell if they have any black blood and for all intents and purposes they can pass for fully white. They might have curly black hair, or a wider nose, but they are pretty white.

The idea of JS ordaining "black" men is actually racist, it comes from the racist idea that a single drop of black blood makes someone black.

At some point (especially in Brazil) the intermingling of the races became so tangled that it became impossible to really determine if someone is majority black or simply has a black ancestor. It is pretty easy in NA b/c the mixing is white and black and someone who is majority black is going to look . . well . . .mostly black. In Brazil the mixing is indian (brown) and black (or white-spaniards and black) and figuring out if someone is majority black (without resorting to genealogy) is going to be pretty hard b/c mixing brown and black is going to give you brown or a shade of black. Mixing white and black is going to give you well a shade of brown to black (so in Brazil, it's going to be hard to actually determine without genealogy, which may or may not be available) . . .until the bloodline gets to be majority white in which case the skin will become white and a few negroid vs. caucasoid features will remain.

[Thinker]

WHITE or FAIR skin color as an indicator of God's righteous people is found in 16 verses in the Book of Mormon.

The church leaders do seem to be leaning to worldly ways - away from Christ - in many ways. You mentioned a lot I agree with, except trying to justify racial prejudice.

One of the flaws of the Book of Mormon is its blatant prejudice. It also plagiarizes the bible, but gets it wrong about equating skin tone with righteousness. Christ had dark skin for heaven’s sake! https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... 4/1282186/ Yeshua (Jesus) is probably laughing in spirit - thinking, “This is exactly why I came as a Middle Eastern man who nobody would like to look at - it sifts the true Christians from those who care more about appearances.”

fair: NOUN, archaic, a beautiful woman

Consider that if “fair” meant light skin, and not external beauty, it would be used with men as well as women, but it’s used with identifying beauty of women...

• Genesis 12:11
  “And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou [art] a fair woman to look upon.”

• Genesis 24:16
  And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.”

Keep in mind these scriptures are dated thousands of years ago, after Abraham (the founder of Judaism) came out of “Ur” Mesopotamia - modern day Iraq. People who have lived there have been dark-skinned. Sure, in trade cities in Ur (ancient Iraq), there were others, but Abraham was from there, not a visitor.

More scriptures about fair meaning beautiful - NOT white skin...
https://sarata.com/bible/verses/about/fair.html

[EmmaLee]

That men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith lived in a world that tolerated slavery and felt the need to somehow justify it does NOT mean they were preaching the truth that these brothers and sisters are somehow lesser because of the color of their skin or their gender.

Joseph Smith wasn't a racist - at least not according to everything I've ever read about him, and most especially by looking at his works. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood. The racism, as part of the institutional Church, did not begin till BY took the reins.

Except that he didn't. If you look at the source material of the "black" men he ordained you will find that he ordained octoroons to the priesthood.

An octoroon is someone who had 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white or European decent. If you look at pictures of octoroons, it's hard to tell if they have any black blood and for all intents and purposes they can pass for fully white. They might have curly black hair, or a wider nose, but they are pretty white.

The idea of JS ordaining "black" men is actually racist, it comes from the racist idea that a single drop of black blood makes someone black.

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -

Elijah_Abel.jpg (26.02 KiB) Viewed 660 times

[Believing Joseph]

Support of Transgenderism and Nihilism
Elder Uchdorf wrote an article, "What is Truth" in The March 2017 Friend telling the parable of the Elephant to describe how it's impossible to know a person's true identity. An accompanying column described that this was about transgender sexuality and helping children to understand this. Putting this into a children's magazine, of all places, is sickeningly repulsive.

I looked up the Friend article from March of 2017 and couldn't find anything about gender or sexuality. Can you give a link to this "accompanying column?"

[dezNatDefender]

That men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith lived in a world that tolerated slavery and felt the need to somehow justify it does NOT mean they were preaching the truth that these brothers and sisters are somehow lesser because of the color of their skin or their gender.

Joseph Smith wasn't a racist - at least not according to everything I've ever read about him, and most especially by looking at his works. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood. The racism, as part of the institutional Church, did not begin till BY took the reins.

Except that he didn't. If you look at the source material of the "black" men he ordained you will find that he ordained octoroons to the priesthood.

An octoroon is someone who had 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white or European decent. If you look at pictures of octoroons, it's hard to tell if they have any black blood and for all intents and purposes they can pass for fully white. They might have curly black hair, or a wider nose, but they are pretty white.

The idea of JS ordaining "black" men is actually racist, it comes from the racist idea that a single drop of black blood makes someone black.

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -


Elijah_Abel.jpg

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

[dezNatDefender]

Support of Transgenderism and Nihilism
Elder Uchdorf wrote an article, "What is Truth" in The March 2017 Friend telling the parable of the Elephant to describe how it's impossible to know a person's true identity. An accompanying column described that this was about transgender sexuality and helping children to understand this. Putting this into a children's magazine, of all places, is sickeningly repulsive.

I looked up the Friend article from March of 2017 and couldn't find anything about gender or sexuality. Can you give a link to this "accompanying column?"

I too would like the accompanying column, without it one could interpret Uchdorf's message in the way you described or as a warning that without Scriptures/Prophets/etc. one is like a blind man trying to identify an elephant by what they touch.

I think iwontbackdown has a lot of great points . .this one I'm not sure about. If it is true, I will unsubscribe to the Friend post-haste.

[EmmaLee]

Joseph Smith wasn't a racist - at least not according to everything I've ever read about him, and most especially by looking at his works. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood. The racism, as part of the institutional Church, did not begin till BY took the reins.

Except that he didn't. If you look at the source material of the "black" men he ordained you will find that he ordained octoroons to the priesthood.

An octoroon is someone who had 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white or European decent. If you look at pictures of octoroons, it's hard to tell if they have any black blood and for all intents and purposes they can pass for fully white. They might have curly black hair, or a wider nose, but they are pretty white.

The idea of JS ordaining "black" men is actually racist, it comes from the racist idea that a single drop of black blood makes someone black.

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -


Elijah_Abel.jpg

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

LOL! If you say so....

[I AM]

In regards to Blacks and the Priesthood. Here's an interesting interview with Apostle LeGrande Richards.
 Interview with Apostle LeGrand Richards

By Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos

16th August 1978

Church Office Building

(Recorded on Cassette)

WALTERS: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I've heard all kinds of stories: I've heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had, had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?

RICHARDS: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it's hard to get leaders that don't have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. 

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray - and we did - that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office - individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, you see - so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. 

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday - we meet every Thursday - the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement - to see how we'd feel about it - and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it - the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

WALTERS: What was the date? Would that have been the first of June, or something?

RICHARDS: That was the first Thursday, I think, in May. [June?] At least that's about when it was. And then after we all voted in favor of it, we called another meeting for the next morning, Friday morning, at seven o'clock, of all the other General Authorities - that includes the Seventies' Quorum and the Patriarch and the Presiding Bishopric, and it was presented to them, and there were a few of the brethren that were out presiding then in the missions, and so the Twelve were appointed to interview each one of them.


It appears that LeGrande Richards didn't think it was a revelation and he was there. This is very contemporary information. Much better than peoples hearsay or 3rd hand remembrances.

--------------
more info. on this


"So the absurdity over people believing the church lost their authority because they excommunicated one man is simply baffling to me. They've excommunicated people by the hundreds over the years, unjustly! Furthermore, I believe they gave up their lesser priesthood rights (if they even had it to give) in 1978 when they welcomed in the black race and having called it a revelation from the Lord."

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=31850&p=903122&hil ... od#p903122

http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

https://www.equip.org/article/unexplain ... an-blacks/

[dezNatDefender]

Except that he didn't. If you look at the source material of the "black" men he ordained you will find that he ordained octoroons to the priesthood.

An octoroon is someone who had 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white or European decent. If you look at pictures of octoroons, it's hard to tell if they have any black blood and for all intents and purposes they can pass for fully white. They might have curly black hair, or a wider nose, but they are pretty white.

The idea of JS ordaining "black" men is actually racist, it comes from the racist idea that a single drop of black blood makes someone black.

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -


Elijah_Abel.jpg

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

LOL! If you say so....

Some people are just so stuck in their beliefs that when facts contradict their beliefs they just throw out the facts.

Fact:Elijah Abel was 1/8th black.
Fact: Many, many 1/8th blacks can pass for white (maybe not European white, but could certainly pass for not African).
Fact: You subscribe to a racist ideology, which states if someone has 1 single great-grandparent who is black, then they are of the black race, i.e. a drop of black blood makes someone black. If you don't, then at what point does someone become (or at least could pass for) not African.
Fact: You must believe Abel was black (i.e. you subscribe to a racist ideology) so that in your worldview Joseph Smith was not racist.

All the believers of the idea that "Joseph Smith was not a racist but BY was", hang their entire worldview upon Elijah Abel. That is it.

Elijah Abel must be black in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist. I find it so incredibly ironic that people subscribe to a racist ideology (one drop of black blood makes someone black) in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist.

The record doesn't state what people think it states. At 1/8th black, it is debatable if Joseph Smith would have even known if Abel had black blood. One photograph is not enough to say much of anything. And if Joseph Smith did know, it could be that he thought that 1/8th black was good enough to say not-black or not-cursed. We just don't know about that

All we do know is that the common trope that JS ordained a black man (which most people think of as, well you know black as is either a freed slave or a free black man) is crap.

Elijah Abil was 87.5% White European.

Now if you want to make the claim that one needs to be 99% European to be considered white, you are free to make that claim. Me personally, I think if you are over 80% you've got a pretty good claim to just saying you are white, probably have a good claim at over 60% depending on how you look. But at 80% . . .unless you really look black-you are white and definitely at 87.5%.

But then again, I don't subscribe to the racist idea that one drop of black blood makes someone black.

Unless of course you are going the road of today's SJW and you just need to make a claim of being black or Native American and you are that race.
Elizabeth Warren or
Rachel Dolezal

[dezNatDefender]

Fun fact:
Plessy v. Ferguson, the separate but equal Supreme Court decision.

Plessy was an octoroon, yes under Louisana law was classified as "black"-again the racist idea that a drop of black blood makes you black. The guy was 87.5% European and had to ride in the "colored" cars.

If someone wants to claim someone who has 87.5% European blood and has 12.5% black blood is black, that is completely valid. The only follow-up question I have is what percentage of black blood is acceptable before one is no longer European (or white) but is now black?

Is it 1%? Is it 5%? Is it 10%?

For me, I'd be personally offended if I'm almost 90% British and I have say 10% Spanish blood that it makes me a Spaniard. I'd claim I'm British.

In this case, because it fits better with the story we make Elijah Abel black . . .I wonder if he would have really considered himself black (or even wanted others to think of him that way). I bet he would have wanted to be thought of just like the majority of his ancestors . . .European not African.

[I AM]

I believe the LDS Church is in full apostasy right now and I believe I can prove it.

------------
thanks for the post.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

I've been in the forum for over a year now and have posted
hundreds of posts using scriptures showing this - not because I'm so against the church,
but simply because I want to find the truth - the truth in what the scriptures
are REALLY SAYING, and put that - the word of God above ALL ELSE.
But even though the scriptures warn and show this, and the truth is
right in front of their face - they still don't want to believe it,
because they want to believe in not God's word, but more in men and their precepts.
and "trust in the arm of the flesh", and believe in what they want to be the truth.
“People say they love truth, but in reality they want to believe that which they love is true.”
–Robert J. Ringer
And they think just because we have the restored gospel,
that "all is well in Zion, and it's here to stay and nothing can change that.
(that's the same kind of pride that the people in the Book of Mormon had
when they too fell into apostasy and lost the gospel to us - now we will lose it back to them.
the first will be last - and last first)
(members don't read the scriptures so they do not know this)
And just with the children of Abraham - they said:
"we are the children of Abraham that God
has covenanted with and that he would bless
his seed forever."
Us members say -
"We have the restored gospel and it will
never be taken from the earth again."

Matthew 3:9 (KJV)
9 And think not to say within yourselves,
We have Abraham to our father:
for I say unto you, that God is able
of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

It won't be taken from the earth again.
The Lord will take it FROM us.

Isaiah 49:3 1 Nephi 21:3
3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant,
O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
---------------------------------------------------------
We had our chance.
The gospel and the power and authority is now
going back to the House of Israel

"I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them."

3 Nephi 16:10,11,12
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father,
I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.
12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

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.

[Zathura]

Joseph Smith wasn't a racist - at least not according to everything I've ever read about him, and most especially by looking at his works. Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood. The racism, as part of the institutional Church, did not begin till BY took the reins.

Except that he didn't. If you look at the source material of the "black" men he ordained you will find that he ordained octoroons to the priesthood.

An octoroon is someone who had 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white or European decent. If you look at pictures of octoroons, it's hard to tell if they have any black blood and for all intents and purposes they can pass for fully white. They might have curly black hair, or a wider nose, but they are pretty white.

The idea of JS ordaining "black" men is actually racist, it comes from the racist idea that a single drop of black blood makes someone black.

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -


Elijah_Abel.jpg

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

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.

[Zathura]

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -


Elijah_Abel.jpg

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

LOL! If you say so....

Some people are just so stuck in their beliefs that when facts contradict their beliefs they just throw out the facts.

Fact:Elijah Abel was 1/8th black.
Fact: Many, many 1/8th blacks can pass for white (maybe not European white, but could certainly pass for not African).
Fact: You subscribe to a racist ideology, which states if someone has 1 single great-grandparent who is black, then they are of the black race, i.e. a drop of black blood makes someone black. If you don't, then at what point does someone become (or at least could pass for) not African.
Fact: You must believe Abel was black (i.e. you subscribe to a racist ideology) so that in your worldview Joseph Smith was not racist.

All the believers of the idea that "Joseph Smith was not a racist but BY was", hang their entire worldview upon Elijah Abel. That is it.

Elijah Abel must be black in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist. I find it so incredibly ironic that people subscribe to a racist ideology (one drop of black blood makes someone black) in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist.

The record doesn't state what people think it states. At 1/8th black, it is debatable if Joseph Smith would have even known if Abel had black blood. One photograph is not enough to say much of anything. And if Joseph Smith did know, it could be that he thought that 1/8th black was good enough to say not-black or not-cursed. We just don't know about that

All we do know is that the common trope that JS ordained a black man (which most people think of as, well you know black as is either a freed slave or a free black man) is crap.

Elijah Abil was 87.5% White European.

Now if you want to make the claim that one needs to be 99% European to be considered white, you are free to make that claim. Me personally, I think if you are over 80% you've got a pretty good claim to just saying you are white, probably have a good claim at over 60% depending on how you look. But at 80% . . .unless you really look black-you are white and definitely at 87.5%.

But then again, I don't subscribe to the racist idea that one drop of black blood makes someone black.

Unless of course you are going the road of today's SJW and you just need to make a claim of being black or Native American and you are that race.
Elizabeth Warren or
Rachel Dolezal

Emmalee isn't subscribing to this idea. The point is that JOSEPH and BRIGHAM did subscribe to this idea. What THEY believed and thought and perceived is what matters, not Emmalee.

Put yourself in their shoes and in their era, and the facts are clear. Brigham thought someone that was .98% black was black, and Joseph did too, yet Joseph was okay with giving the priesthood and Brigham was not.

[Zathura]

All the apostasy we want to see is right here in this thread.

Do you always expound and explain your accusations so masterfully?

[dezNatDefender]

Except that he didn't. If you look at the source material of the "black" men he ordained you will find that he ordained octoroons to the priesthood.

An octoroon is someone who had 1 great-grandparent who was black and 7 who were white or European decent. If you look at pictures of octoroons, it's hard to tell if they have any black blood and for all intents and purposes they can pass for fully white. They might have curly black hair, or a wider nose, but they are pretty white.

The idea of JS ordaining "black" men is actually racist, it comes from the racist idea that a single drop of black blood makes someone black.

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -


Elijah_Abel.jpg

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

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.

[dezNatDefender]

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

LOL! If you say so....

Some people are just so stuck in their beliefs that when facts contradict their beliefs they just throw out the facts.

Fact:Elijah Abel was 1/8th black.
Fact: Many, many 1/8th blacks can pass for white (maybe not European white, but could certainly pass for not African).
Fact: You subscribe to a racist ideology, which states if someone has 1 single great-grandparent who is black, then they are of the black race, i.e. a drop of black blood makes someone black. If you don't, then at what point does someone become (or at least could pass for) not African.
Fact: You must believe Abel was black (i.e. you subscribe to a racist ideology) so that in your worldview Joseph Smith was not racist.

All the believers of the idea that "Joseph Smith was not a racist but BY was", hang their entire worldview upon Elijah Abel. That is it.

Elijah Abel must be black in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist. I find it so incredibly ironic that people subscribe to a racist ideology (one drop of black blood makes someone black) in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist.

The record doesn't state what people think it states. At 1/8th black, it is debatable if Joseph Smith would have even known if Abel had black blood. One photograph is not enough to say much of anything. And if Joseph Smith did know, it could be that he thought that 1/8th black was good enough to say not-black or not-cursed. We just don't know about that

All we do know is that the common trope that JS ordained a black man (which most people think of as, well you know black as is either a freed slave or a free black man) is crap.

Elijah Abil was 87.5% White European.

Now if you want to make the claim that one needs to be 99% European to be considered white, you are free to make that claim. Me personally, I think if you are over 80% you've got a pretty good claim to just saying you are white, probably have a good claim at over 60% depending on how you look. But at 80% . . .unless you really look black-you are white and definitely at 87.5%.

But then again, I don't subscribe to the racist idea that one drop of black blood makes someone black.

Unless of course you are going the road of today's SJW and you just need to make a claim of being black or Native American and you are that race.
Elizabeth Warren or
Rachel Dolezal

Emmalee isn't subscribing to this idea. The point is that JOSEPH and BRIGHAM did subscribe to this idea. What THEY believed and thought and perceived is what matters, not Emmalee.

Put yourself in their shoes and in their era, and the facts are clear. Brigham thought someone that was .98% black was black, and Joseph did too, yet Joseph was okay with giving the priesthood and Brigham was not.

There is NO record that indicates that Joseph Smith believed that an octoroon was black. For all we know he could have thought that at 87.5% White European a person is no longer black but white. He could have thought that at 87.5% white the curse of cain was removed. We just don't know.

You are putting conjecture into JS b/c the facts are butting up against your belief system-which is JS couldn't have been racist b/c the Priesthood ban was from BY not JS and the Priesthood ban is racist. It's circular logic that the record just doesn't show and again people (including you) are claiming JS is not a racist through racist ideology.

Joseph Smith never ordained a 50%+ black man, he only ordained an 87.5% white man. Did he believe he was ordaining a black man (thus subscribing to the idea that a drop of black blood makes someone black) not a man who was 87.5% white-we don't know and anyone who claims otherwise is pushing their own bias.

You cannot make the claim that Joseph Smith was okay with ordaining majority black men to the Priesthood. The historical record is not there for it.

[[email protected]]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." - C.S. Lewis

As an active member I've kept silence about this for many years because I believe it's not our place as members to go against it. But this latest doctrinal change of covenants in the Temple, and the greater acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage has put me over the edge. I can't sit by and not say something. I believe the LDS Church is in full apostasy right now and I believe I can prove it.

This is just a short list I threw together of examples, but I think it's more than enough to say that something is seriously amiss in the church. To be clear, I sustain our leaders and Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. But I do not worship them like Idols like so many members do. I believe that Joseph Smith taught us to learn by the Spirit, not be beholden to Prophets as gatekeepers of absolute truth. I reject the idea that we should never be able to think for ourselves, pray for ourselves, and understand for ourselves what is going on in the Church. We don't just follow blindly. That doctrine was never taught in the early Church, nor among Scriptural Prophets.

Boy Scouts
For many years they supported this program even after it allowed openly homosexual leaders and boys into the program, even girls and transgender scouts are now allowed. After announcing their leaving from the program, they openly cited that their reason for leaving had nothing to do with the radical, anti-Christian changes.

I am an Eagle Scout myself and as such I took the Oath to "to do my duty to God". You cannot follow and donate to the modern "Scouts BSA" program and still consider yourself doing your duty to God. A program sponsored by the church can only be valid when it upholds our teachings.

Priesthood ban
Many members now believe that the Priesthood ban on black members was not a legitimate revelation from Joseph Smith, that it came from a bigoted Brigham Young.
Abraham 1:25-27 was clearly the modern revelation, and this was revealed through Joseph Smith, not Brigham Young. Entire articles from the LDS owned Deseret News and even some general authorities bashed the ban as either bigoted by Brigham Young's racism, false doctrine, during the anniversary last year.

Joseph Smith supported the ban in his Abolisionist Letter to Oliver Cowdery, even quoting Scripture to defend it. Joseph backs up the Priesthood ban, as well as his opposition to the abolition of slavery with the original curse of Canaan which is well supported throughout the Bible:

"Trace the history of the world from this notable event, down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is effected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late, for their own good, that God can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel."

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and his words are true. We should not hide or repress these words. The "great power" Joseph refers to that would change this doctrine is President Kimball's 1978 revelation. Read Joseph's full letter here:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... 03Lw2X94jg

Male only missionary force
Article of Faith 5 says only men should be called. Females were never called by Joseph or Brigham, not until 1898. Jesus or the early Church never called female missionaries. Why? Because women should be focused on building a family, above all (addressed below), not proselytizing, which only Priesthood holders are allowed to do.

Support and normalization of Homosexuality
mormonandgay.lds.org. They openly attacked Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for not serving gay marriage licenses. The Bible is clear from Genesis to Jude that homosexuality is abjectly wrong. Also D&C 132. The perpetuation throughout the church normalizing this behavior is absolutely sickening false doctrine.

We have people attending church cross-dressing, and gay youth making-out during Seminary breaks (yes, this has happened).

Most recently, the church now refuses to call gay marriage apostasy. How can this not be apostasy? The view of standard sin is I understand it, is a momentary mistake that you lapse in. Apostasy is the concept of open rebellion, choosing an evil pathas a life choice deliberately that takes you away from God in serious transgression. Choosing, accepting and contracting yourself in a homosexual marriage is exactly what this is and goes against the most fundamental building block of the Lord's kingdom: the family.

Support of Transgenderism and Nihilism
Elder Uchdorf wrote an article, "What is Truth" in The March 2017 Friend telling the parable of the Elephant to describe how it's impossible to know a person's true identity. An accompanying column described that this was about transgender sexuality and helping children to understand this. Putting this into a children's magazine, of all places, is sickeningly repulsive.

Disregard of The Family a Proclamation to the World
The other points speak for evidence of this, but for a local example, my own Sunday school class has had heated arguments about this sacred documents. Our instructor could not even get through the first couple paragraphs before several ward members began disagreeing with its teachings. Our own Bishop and stake President was in attendance and said nothing. With more and more members openly and publicly declaring their support for homosexuality, the warnings of this sacred document are more relevant than ever.

Supporting the Muslim Religion
Many church buildings, including my own, have been used to celebrate Ramadan with the Muslim community each Spring. One ward in Salt Lake City even had their paintings of Christ covered up in the Relief Society room so Muslims could pray. This is total blasphemy.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9chyo ... p=drivesdk

Ramadan is a celebration of Mohammad's First Vision with the Angel Gabriel. This is a false mockery of Joseph Smith's true First Vision!

Research the history of Islam. Mohammad was a vicious warlord, he conquered towns and territories, murdering the men and taking the women as sex slaves who refused to believe in his religion. To follow Islam is to follow this same tradition, and the numbers back this up. See the latest in killings in the name of Islam here. They're always in the hundreds every month.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/atta ... ?Yr=Last30

Sister Eubanks of the general relief society presidency, recently said at the United Nations that, "The best answer to Islamic extremism will be authentic Islam". Wrong! The best answer is always Faith in Jesus Christ! Why are we pushing people to support false doctrine and a false church? There is only one way: Christ, and we all promise at baptism to "stand as witnesses" to that way. Islam is the "church of the devil" and we should be fighting against it, not EVER supporting it. 1 Nephi 14:10

Attack on Nationalism and the white race
This is constantly attacked, especially since Trump as elected. Two apostles denounced "nationalism" in General Conference, not just supremecy or "white nationalism", mind you, just nationalism.

This is nothing but an attack on national self-determination and freedom upon which free nations are built. This is promotion of global Communism. These public statements condemning nationalism and comparing it to racism and bigotry is a clear and reprehensible example of the sickness permeating the highest levels of leadership.

One of the most fundamental and primary messages of The Book of Mormon is the value of nationalism, protecting ones people, borders, and even RACIAL make-up.

FAIR:
* (of a person) having a light complexion or blond hair. . Google Dictionary
* not dark. Merriam Webster
* (used of hair or skin) pale or light-colored. Vocabulary.com
* (of hair or complexion) light; blonde. oxforddictionaries.com
* (of skin) pale, or (of hair) pale yellow or gold. dictionary.cambridge.org

WHITE or FAIR skin color as an indicator of God's righteous people is found in 16 verses in the Book of Mormon. 5 out of the 16 use both words together. It is also clear that the people of 4th Nephi became "fair" (white) before they were able to get along with each other and became, "heirs to the kingdom of God".

1 Nephi 11
13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly FAIR and WHITE.
15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were WHITE, and exceedingly FAIR and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

2 Nephi 5
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were WHITE, and exceedingly FAIR and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

Jacob 2
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the FAIR daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Jacob 3
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be WHITER than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.

Mosiah 19
13 And it came to pass that those who tarried with their wives and their children caused that their FAIR daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them.

3 Nephi 2
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became WHITE like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly FAIR, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

3 Nephi 8
25 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our FAIR daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.

3 Nephi 9
2 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the FAIR sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!

4 Nephi 1
10 And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly FAIR and delightsome people.
17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

Mormon 6
17 O ye FAIR ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye FAIR ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you!
19 O ye FAIR sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye FAIR ones, how is it that ye could have fallen!

Mormon 9
6 O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, FAIR, and WHITE, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day.

Ether 7:4
4 And when Corihor was thirty and two years old he rebelled against his father, and went over and dwelt in the land of Nehor; and he begat sons and daughters, and they became exceedingly FAIR; wherefore Corihor drew away many people after him.

Ether 8
9 Now the daughter of Jared was exceedingly FAIR. And it came to pass that she did talk with her father, and said unto him: Whereby hath my father so much sorrow? Hath he not read the record which our fathers brought across the great deep? Behold, is there not an account concerning them of old, that they by their secret plans did obtain kingdoms and great glory?
10 And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king.

Ether 13:17
17 But he repented not, neither his FAIR sons nor daughters; neither the FAIR sons and daughters of Cohor; neither the FAIR sons and daughters of Corihor; and in fine, there were none of the FAIR sons and daughters upon the face of the whole earth who repented of their sins.

The phrase, "Choice land above all other lands" (or very similar to it) is found in 14 verses in the Book Mormon.

1 Nephi 2:20
1 Nephi 13:30
2 Nephi 1:5
2 Nephi 10:19
Jacob 5:43
Ether 1:38
Ether 1:42
Ether 2:7
Ether 2:10
Ether 2:12
Ether 2:15
Ether 9:20
Ether 10:28
Ether 13:2

If you don't believe that nationalism, and the importance of our racial make-up isn't strongly supported in the foundations of our faith, you are sorely mistaken and being led astray by the devil.

Allowing women to teach and run as Ward leaders
This has been around forever and is very obvious. Even a basic reading of the Bible shows in many, many places that women are to keep silence, learn at home, and not teach in church. There are numerous, not re-translated verses discussing this. Has there been a JST or a modern revelation showing these verses are false or mistranslated? Then why are they not being taught in Church?!

Letting women be "equals" to men
Again, the Bible is clear on this. Peter says that women are "the weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7), and Paul discusses women being in subjection to her husband as the church is in subjection to Christ. There is no equality of gender in God's kingdom! Equality comes from Karl Marx, Lenin, Bolshevism, and Communism, NOT from God. This is what we fought over in the pre-existence! God choose Christ's path of choice and self determination, while the devil wanted an equal outcome for everyone. We are fighting this same fight today.

Women head coverings
Women don't cover their heads anymore. 1 Corinthians 5-6 teaches that women should have their heads covered. Early women in the church usually kept a bonnet or hat on their heads. The Bible is the Word of God, why don't we follow this anymore?

Disregard of the Scriptures
In recent years, it seems the Church is focusing only on Christ's life alone and the current prophet, as if anything else written in other scriptures or by past prophets is "less" or should be ignored. This includes the Book of Mormon's strong sense of using arms to defend yourself and capital punishment to take out treasonous or evil leaders.

The life and teachings of Jesus wasn't just in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Christ's teachings spans from Adam and Eve, to Moses, to Paul, to James, to Nephi, Alma, Captain Moroni, and Mormon, and through the modern prophets. ALL of these are the words of Christ and they are of equal weight. President Nelson's words are no more important or sacred as any other prophet.

I've heard on several occasions by members of my own ward that the words in the Bible are simply mis-translations (with no evidence to back this up) or were simply "customs" of the time. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." Article of Faith 8. Joseph Smith already gave us the re-translated verses. Outside of that, we should be following these words like our life depended on it.

Let me make this clear. Following a human being, and a human being alone is CULT-like mentality. Following a man, at the disregard of Scripture and the Holy Ghost like this is not the way Christ built this church. It never was.

National borders
Going along with their anti-nationalism the Church loves to quote, "I was a stranger and ye let me in", but fail to quote verses like, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.". There is a lot of selective reading of the Bible, including only those that back up their politics. They ignore many, many passages of the Book of Mormon where the Nephites used walls and barriers to block the Lamanites. This is NEVER talked about anymore. In fact, in a recent talk, Elder Rasband went out of his way to avoid using the word "wall", instead using the word "fortress", even though the "wall" was highly effective in his own story!
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng

Elder Nelson also spoke recently, after donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Pope, of "the importance of building bridges of friendship instead of building walls of segregation".

How incredibly political, cliched, and short-sighted is this statement! Walls are not evil, and they are used throughout our Scriptures as protection. God's kingdom is separated by a barrier to those who do not enter in "at the strait gate" and our own temples have walls or fencing around them. We keep walls to protect sacred things, not to segregate or hate on others! There is absolutely no reason why can't have walls and still be friends with our neighbors.

Politicking
The church is constantly visiting world leaders and speaking its political mind. They've been giving money to the United Nations including some of its subsidiary organizations like CARE (pushes homosexuality in children) and UNICEF (found to have been helping Boko Haram), and the Pope to bring in more immigrants. Christ avoided politics like the plague. "Render unto caesar...", he said, to avoid the topic. He refused to talk to Pilate, and constantly avoided paying taxes, telling his disciples how unjust tax collection is (Matt 17:24-27). The pharisees even used his tax avoidance (or perception of it) as justification for his capital punishment (Luke 23:2).

They've been collaborating with the NAACP. A radical group rife with corruption, that openly funded Black Lives matters to protest against police. They recently gave money to an NAACP-run welfare program.

The UN is a corrupt and evil organization. It idolizes Communism and one world government. To give and support his organization is evil in itself.

The love of money
The Church that is loaded with over 40 billion dollars claims to be the same one whose original founder, Jesus, road into Jerusalem on a donkey and taught to "take no thought for the morrow". I do believe that funds are necessary for the work to continue, but I think we've lost site of the spirit of this principle entirely. Members take Jacob's "seek ye the kingdom of God" scripture out of context to back this up, but seem to forget that there is literally no Scripture anywhere that talks about stockpiling mountains of cash for shopping malls, newspapers, and the other myriad of worldly businesses that church is invested in.

Our members have become deeply intertwined with the world, buying larger and larger homes, and seeking after more and more education and better careers. Utah leads the nation in per-capita pyramid schemes. Mitt Romney, the Huntsman family, and other big names are the face of our church now. Is this how Christ wanted us to be seen? As rich and well-connected, political princes?

Many have become obsessed with money, power, and fame. Our leaders seem obsessed with constantly meeting with government leaders, celebrations (concerts for gays, and birthday parties for the prophet?!), and cow-towing to the world's desire through our more politically correct advertising campaigns. We are no longer a peculiar people, we've become obsessed with getting a pat on the head by the world. This is undeniable.

"And when the spirit of persecution, the spirit of hatred, of wrath, and malice ceases in the world against this people, it will be the time that this people have apostatized and joined hands with the wicked, and never until then; which I pray may never come."
Brigham Young, May 31, 1857, JD 4:327

I don't believe it's possible anymore to "live in the world, but not of the world". We need to take more notice of groups like the Amish and Mennonites, who are living simple lives as the Savior taught, as far away from the world as possible.

Globalism
The church's image is trying to embody everybody, all races, genders, sexes, etc, etc. While Christ's Church should transcend borders, it does not even attempt to speak to everyone in their own "language". We are taught that the gospel should be brought to "every nation, kindred, tongue, and people", not turn everyone into a global conglomerate of sameness. It's more likely this is more anti-Trump mentality.

One-sided political commentary
The church only speaks out with its PR department to tout its values when it's against Donald Trump, or the Christian right, never to tout its values when it appears to be in support of Trump. For example, the Brett Kavanaugh hearings where one of the most fundamental of human rights, Due Proces,s was eviscerated by the Democrats. Not a peep from the Church. But Elder Oaks took time out to write a scathing article, trashing a few rural anti gay marriage clerks around the country.

The church often wades into political lecturing when it sides with the left-wing, but never for the other side. Where are the conference talks on people losing their free speech online, talking against the destructive #MeToo movement (including the reprehensible Kavanaugh hearing), Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Muslim violence in Europe (hundreds of Christian churches burned last year) etc? Not a peep, but "how dare a rural Kentucky female clerk not give marriage licenses to homosexuals!" This is completely backward!

Anti-men
There is a general sense of anti-male, anti due process in church. My bishop said that any accusaton of abuse came to his attention, the FIRST thing he would do is call the police. This, before talking or counseling to anyone. How can anyone feel safe in taking a calling teaching children or youth when this mentality is being taken? I have already refused callings dealing with youth because of the chance that I could be falsely accused of something. I have no confidence that my church will back me up anymore.

Look at LDS.org right now. On any given day their are pro-women empowerment articles. There is a clear push to get women into male roles, and it comes directly from the top. LDS leaders have even gone so far to suggest that women already have the priesthood because they were called by someone with it. Absurd! Unless you are "conferred" the Priesthood by one having authority by the laying on of hands, you have no such Priesthood authority.

In a recent article, Associate Professor of Church History at BYU, Barbara Morgan Gardner said,
"When teaching this concept to my students, I often ask, “If a stake is having a joint Young Men and Young Women presidency meeting, who presides?” Because both the stake Young Women president and the stake Young Men president were called and set apart by one holding priesthood keys (the stake president), with their callings, both have the same priesthood authority and therefore neither presides over the other. It would make sense for them to take turns in conducting meetings."

This is complete false doctrine! D&C 20:44-45 clearly teaches that "the elders are to take the lead of all meetings" and there is absolutely no foundation for the statement that "both have the same priesthood authority".

Ministering Program
This program is being run with the Elders and the Relief Society working as equal partners. Co-PPIs are sometimes being done in wards with the RS Presidency and EQ Presidency together. The Relief Society doesn't have the keys to do this!

Ignorance or downright support of Socialism & Communism
Several modern prophets strongly spoke against this including Presidents Brown, McKay, Benson and others. I gave a talk alluding to this subject and my bishop ridiculed me for it when I gave him the topic as being outdated. Several modern political leaders now openly support Socialism, including one past Presidential candidate and several up and coming politicians. There are sure to be more. How can this topic be outdated when it is more pertinent than ever?

Yet it is 100% absent in modern LDS discourse. This is despicable beyond belief. The Federal Johnson Act is not an excuse when the Church routinely delves into political speech when it suits them. And should God's Church be fearing to speak truth because it offends Government? Moses had no fear to speak against Pharaoh. He knew God could work miracles and protect his people no matter what. Now, it seems, our church is rife with fear of offending instead of having faith in the Lord. The Boy Scouts is a perfect example of this: complete and total fear to stand up for what's right.

Jesus taught that the "Good Shephard" would give his life for his sheep, but the "hireling" would flee when the wolves came. Are we being led by shepherds or hirelings?

Husband/Wife relationship
On Jan 1, 2019, the LDS Church removed the Temple covenant for wives to, "hearken to her husband as he hearken to the Lord". This is the worst one of all. This is absolutely a doctrinal change. How can it not be? Covenants in the temple are sealed in heaven! It also goes completely against Biblical teachings:

Ephesians 5:
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

1 Timothy 2:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

If the wife no longer needs to "hearken" to her husband then what is the point of him presiding in the home? Do we say that when the Bishop or Stake President Presides we don't need to listen and follow their counsel?

If the wife doesn't hearken to her husband than he is not the "patriarch" of his home any longer. That means that he no longer is the only person that receives revelation for his family. Do people have any idea how much this changes the Church? This is the CORE of his Priesthood duties; to receive inspiration for his family. And the family is the core of the Gospel - not the church, not even the Temple, THE FAMILY. This has essentially removed a major component of Priesthood authority.

How does this even work in the eternal scheme? Are their some Eternal families that now have the husband as the head and some that do not because some took the covenant after Jan 1, 2019? Or are the old covenants now invalid?

Joseph Smith taught:
"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles."

This is not some minor change. This has deep, far reaching doctrinal problems that changes many, many concepts in the Church. Many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants where men are blessed as revelators for their homes are now called into question. Section 132 is now in question. This is insanity!

One of our biggest problems in society is the push to get women out of the home and into more education and the work place. This leads to lower and lower birthrates. This is proven by the data. Google, "female empowerment fertility rate", or "female empowerment overpopulation". There is a very strong causation between educating women and lower birth rates over the entire planet. The Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation have been dedicated to this, and have given tens of billions of dollars to nations to try to empower and educate women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXUkameA0r8

The church appears to be going down the same road. Lowering birthrates while promoting immigration is, by the United Nation's own definition, Genocide:

"Legal definition of genocide
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/a ... ework.pdf

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

This is just a sampling, there is much, much more. You look at all these changes and it is clear that they have turned away from not only from the Scriptures, but from the principles from the Restoration of Joseph Smith.

Joseph Fielding Smith said,

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."

It is our duty to reject it. As a long-time member, I've followed the words of Moroni 10:4-5, as well as the words of the Lord in Doctrine & Covenants 9 to, "study it out in your mind" and to ask the Lord. This is not a lack of understanding, questioning or confusion on my part. I've fasted and prayed about these things and I KNOW through revelation from God that these things are wrong. They are not from God. I will not follow it. No man on this Earth has a right to remake God's laws. No man.

I firmly believe the changes to polygamy and the Priesthood ban because those have backing in Scripture. You look at who had the Priesthood throughout the Bible and it changed hands many times. Canaan's curse was always prophesied to be lifted at some point. Joseph backs this up.

Polygamy is the same. There are eras in Scriptures in its support and other times in Scriptures where the Lord was against it.

But none of the things I've listed above are backed by Scripture. They are as anti-Scripture as can be. I don't believe in the concept that only the words of the current prophet, today, are valid or more important than past prophets. I believe they are all of equal worth and vital to our salvation. We cannot discard past revelations.

Sustaining your leaders doesn't mean pure fealty and servitude. The word "sustain" means, to "strengthen or support physically or mentally." It is our duty as members of the church to not only adhere to the good principles of our leaders, but to correct, and "at times reprove" them when they have erred. As a Priesthood leader in my own ward, I would hope and pray the members would do the same for me when I have made a mistake.

Joseph Smith understood his role when he said, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves". "Follow the Prophet" isn't a cord around our necks. It's a proclamation that must be qualified by the standard of the Scriptures and the revelation of the Holy Ghost. See what Nephi said about following Lehi, he implored his brothers to ask God. 1 Nephi 15: 7-11.

These modern pollutions in our own church was prophesied by Mormon:

"O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?"
Mormon 8:38

I pray for our LDS friends, from a place of love and concern, to return to the doctrines of Christ. The commandments aren't hate, they are exactly what the "Love of God" is - they are designed to get us back into the presence of God. We cannot partake in God's love without holding to the iron rod of the commandments first, that leads us to the fruit of the tree of life.

I really can't disagree with most of this. I have felt the same way especially since the rumored Temple changes were confirmed to be true and actually implemented.

I also bothered by these constant calls from Church leaders to reject what is today called nationalism and supposed white supremacy. Of all the things to condemn, they don't publicly call out the societal cancers of feminism, homosexuality, trangenderism or disruptive organizations like Antifa or Black Lives Matter with that kind of zeal but they did so with nationalism? That raised some red flags with me.

I think many members want God to be a 21 Century SJW and the Church leadership seems to be accommodating their request. I'm not interested in modern 21st Century notions of what is "racist" or "sexist" because those definitions are now corrupt and written and revised by equally corrupt men.

[Zathura]

LOL! If you say so....

Some people are just so stuck in their beliefs that when facts contradict their beliefs they just throw out the facts.

Fact:Elijah Abel was 1/8th black.
Fact: Many, many 1/8th blacks can pass for white (maybe not European white, but could certainly pass for not African).
Fact: You subscribe to a racist ideology, which states if someone has 1 single great-grandparent who is black, then they are of the black race, i.e. a drop of black blood makes someone black. If you don't, then at what point does someone become (or at least could pass for) not African.
Fact: You must believe Abel was black (i.e. you subscribe to a racist ideology) so that in your worldview Joseph Smith was not racist.

All the believers of the idea that "Joseph Smith was not a racist but BY was", hang their entire worldview upon Elijah Abel. That is it.

Elijah Abel must be black in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist. I find it so incredibly ironic that people subscribe to a racist ideology (one drop of black blood makes someone black) in order to prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a racist.

The record doesn't state what people think it states. At 1/8th black, it is debatable if Joseph Smith would have even known if Abel had black blood. One photograph is not enough to say much of anything. And if Joseph Smith did know, it could be that he thought that 1/8th black was good enough to say not-black or not-cursed. We just don't know about that

All we do know is that the common trope that JS ordained a black man (which most people think of as, well you know black as is either a freed slave or a free black man) is crap.

Elijah Abil was 87.5% White European.

Now if you want to make the claim that one needs to be 99% European to be considered white, you are free to make that claim. Me personally, I think if you are over 80% you've got a pretty good claim to just saying you are white, probably have a good claim at over 60% depending on how you look. But at 80% . . .unless you really look black-you are white and definitely at 87.5%.

But then again, I don't subscribe to the racist idea that one drop of black blood makes someone black.

Unless of course you are going the road of today's SJW and you just need to make a claim of being black or Native American and you are that race.
Elizabeth Warren or
Rachel Dolezal

Emmalee isn't subscribing to this idea. The point is that JOSEPH and BRIGHAM did subscribe to this idea. What THEY believed and thought and perceived is what matters, not Emmalee.

Put yourself in their shoes and in their era, and the facts are clear. Brigham thought someone that was .98% black was black, and Joseph did too, yet Joseph was okay with giving the priesthood and Brigham was not.

There is NO record that indicates that Joseph Smith believed that an octoroon was black. For all we know he could have thought that at 87.5% White European a person is no longer black but white. He could have thought that at 87.5% white the curse of cain was removed. We just don't know.

You are putting conjecture into JS b/c the facts are butting up against your belief system-which is JS couldn't have been racist b/c the Priesthood ban was from BY not JS and the Priesthood ban is racist. It's circular logic that the record just doesn't show and again people (including you) are claiming JS is not a racist through racist ideology.

Joseph Smith never ordained a 50%+ black man, he only ordained an 87.5% white man. Did he believe he was ordaining a black man (thus subscribing to the idea that a drop of black blood makes someone black) not a man who was 87.5% white-we don't know and anyone who claims otherwise is pushing their own bias.

You cannot make the claim that Joseph Smith was okay with ordaining majority black men to the Priesthood. The historical record is not there for it.

I'd say that the burden is on you to prove that he did not think that a 10% black person makes someone black, as that was the dominating belief of society at that time and also the policy of the church for more than 100 years.
In addition to that, Brother Abil supposedly escaped slavery(dispelling the notion that some members of the church might not have viewed him as being black) and he was literally prevented from being sealed in the temple because of his "blackness". Logic dictates that it's in you to prove that Joseph(and anyone) would have thought otherwise.

I'm not saying Joseph wasnt racist. Both him and his father have said racist things. Its just clear that Joseph made exceptions where Brigham never did and that Joseph's views on race seems to change over time.

All you need is one case to set a precedent, and that's what happened here.

The racist ban was instituted by Brigham, his views on race were stronger, repeated more often, more unwavering and far more consequential than were Joseph's views.

P.s. I was wondering where you've been, I missed your posts

[Zathura]

From Official Declaration 2 -

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

Just one example (looks black to me, but I guess everyone's perceptions are different) -


Elijah_Abel.jpg

Elija Abel was an octoroon.

That is 100% absolutely a fact. Yes I know what OD2 states-but it is wrong. How do I know he was an octoroon. Because I looked at the actual source document that talks about his baptism and ordination.

And if that isn't enough for you; I'll go to the almighty wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel
Elijah Abel was born in Frederick-Town, Maryland on 25 July 1808 to Delilah Williams, who was of Scotch descent, and Andrew Abel, an Englishman. A grandmother of Elijah was "half white," or Mulatto; his paternal grandfather, Joseph Abel, was a member of the English House of Commons.[1][4][8][3] Thus was Elijah considered to be "Octoroon," or one-eighth African.

Face it Emma, you are subscribing to a racist ideology. The racist ideology which states if someone has a drop of black blood they are black.

Facts don't care about your feelings; you've been reading the wrong history and interpreting it wrong. Joseph Smith NEVER ordained a majority black man to the priesthood.

With that picture you can tell he is white, the entire face is white. Just like I said, octoroons look white with a small amount of negroid features (black hair, wider nose-that's about it).

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.

I get what you're saying, it's all spot on.

There are quite a few places that suggest that Joseph and Abel were "Good friends", starting mostly because of the work he did in helping build in Kirtland, he was also the one who was at Joseph Smith Sr's bedside when he was ill. He was viewed every bit as a black man, was told only to preach to "His people" and was persecuted and accused of monstrosities because of his "blackness".
I never bothered looking into where they get the idea that they were "Good friends", perhaps sometime I will.

We can confirm that yes, Joseph ordained a man that, by seemingly everyone else in the church was viewed as a straight black man and Joseph's father gave him a patriarchal blessing(In which he was blessed to one day become "White", again suggesting that they viewed him as black) so I think if we were to judge something like this like we judge all other situations, it would really be your burden to prove that Joseph thought of him differently than did seemingly everyone else around him.

Anyways, most of what you're saying is spot on!

And again, it's clear that Joseph's views on race changed over time, because at one time he declared that Slavery was of God and later in life(just before his death) became an abolitionist. 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.