About one week before the announcement. My dad gave me a very detailed explanation about why they could not hold the priesthood on his infamous blackboard (the same one he used to explain the "birds and the bees"). Basically it was the whole "fence sitter" story.

I had questions because during a recent General Conference a Bishop had been excommunicated for giving a black boy the priesthood. This had caused so much consternation amongst the leadership that they had coerced the Salt Lake City Police into keeping this Bishop under surveillance during conference to ensure he would not be a "problem".

During the surveillance, one of the officers had become restless and placed his semi-automatic pistol on the dashboard of the car(I am assuming it was a 1911, the official gun of Utah,because of the way it discharged). The gun accidentally went off and hit his partner in the neck making him a quadriplegic for the next few years of his life.Until his death this officer became very vocal about this incident.

This caused me to have many questions about the whole doctrine. When the church announced the new change I asked my dad about it. He told me to just forget everything I had been told by him the week previously.

I felt really dumb earlier this week. Listening to the BoM Musical I had purchased from itunes, it occured to me that I had been wrong about the date that the church ended temple/priesthood/celestial kingom discrimination against black people.

Somehow, I had the date 1968 in my mind for the year that the church announced everyone could "recieve the priesthood." The lyrics of the song "I believe" corrected me.

1978.

Holy Crap.

The Civil rights laws finally passed in 64,' which means there must have been serious political will in that direction since at least the late 50's.

Let me say that I have no idea how I got 1968 stuck in my head, but I always thought it was shameful that TSCC was so many years behind the rest of America. But almost TWENTY YEARS?

What was it like to me a Mormon during the 70's? What kind of pressure did you feel? What were people saying inside and outside of the church? It seems like this is a LONG TIME to twiddle your thumbs as a church.

Very interesting considering what you said to me somewhere else.

Hmmmmm very interesting!

When will you answer my questions, AIC?

I want to answer your question, I really do. I perceive that there are just somethings that cannot be discussed no matter the intention or love behind it!

Let's just agree what happened was wrong, what is happening is wrong.

You guys will NEVER actually know the detriment such a position has, you may be able to sympathize and you may think it is wrong.

I on the other hand live it daily...not as a victim please do not misunderstand.

I go to church with people who love to act like i am their friend so everyone can see...just yesterday I ran into my RS president as I often do, pretending not to see me.

I don't care anymore now that I know this whole mess is just a power play!

BTW I didn't know "pray tell" were fighting words.

Oh did you read my Explanation of 2 Cor 7 I think about the whole marriage thing.

You obviously know the bible, AIC.

After the hellish Morgdom I have decided to find out for myself.

I didn't know you are latino, not that makes a diff.

You know when I was 26 I walked into an institute class as I was apt. I sit down ready to learn.

This big tall guy walks over to me and asks me what is your tribe. Being african I am like er,...what does this chap know about tribes.

So I said as much.

He no what does your PB say, I asked him why he wanted to know. He said he was curious.

So I said Ephraim.

He said, really, hmmm that is interesting, considering the colour of your skin. An ephramite you say?

WHAT?????? Now so just you know I am NOT a shrinking violet.

It was going to be on with this Teacher of Doctrine.

Ok fast forward a few weeks later after deciding I didn't want to be in that Nutjobs class.

Walk into a different class...have the same experience, only this time the teacher who was obviously on his way out detailed the whole priesthood mess, tying it to an arugment Orson had with a poor black guy that Orson had wrongly accused [Maybe S. Benson can shed light], now that was fun.

It seems everytime I walk into an institute class the topic comes us...well that is that.

Ha ha ha ha!

When I suggested that he was probably "adopted" into Ephraim, he wrote a letter to his dad, who blew his top and insisted that they are PURE BLOODED ISRAELITES.

I think part of the issue is that the early Mormon royalty was all told they descended from Joseph naturally, so they assume that the Ephraim line was western European.

Ludicrous by any standards.

Oh well good for him!

Hmmmm...there is much to be said on this issue.

Relevation...I hate how MORGdom takes pure words and distorts them to the point where those who hear them just can't help but puke!

For the actual wording of the 1978 revelation, see http://packham.n4m.org/blacks.htm - (be sure to read the whole thing!!)

Ha ha ha ah!

that was the conclusion I came to.

And then it occurred to me that if God REALLY had given such a revelation to the prophet, what possible reason could there have been for not publicizing its wording? And I realized that maybe the revelation had revealed more than the Brethren wanted revealed. Such as verses 13-21, which I am inspired to believe God would have included in a genuine revelation.

Either way you look at it, the whole thing shows that the Mormon church is NOT led by God.

I loved "the rest of the revelation." Funny how anyone can easily write in Book of Mormon style and then listen to people claim that the BOM has to be true because no one could just make it up. Yup.

The Bible says that the mother of Ephraim and Manasseh (i.e. the wife of Joseph of Egypt) was an Egyptian woman, daughter of an Egyptian priest. (Gen 41:45). Thus, according to the Book of Abraham, no one with Egyptian blood could hold the priesthood. (Abr 1:21-22, 27). So, any Mormon who is of the tribes of Ephraim or Manasseh should never have been ordained to the priesthood.

BUT:

Joseph Smith taught that the moment someone is baptized into the church, his blood is transformed into the pure blood of Abraham. (History of the Church 3:380, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 150). Since this apparently also applies to black people, they never should have been denied the priesthood, being of pure Abrahamic blood.

ha ha ha ha!

Oh yes that is a good one.

Oh never mind that Asenath being Egyptian was black too!

Goodness what did I give my mind over to!

I remember the first time someone called me a "coloured girl" ha ha ha ha, Just some bull for sure!

Now can I ask why you needed to qualify your statement with "strikingly beautiful" African American?

You get my drift.

I have brought up the whole Egypt thing and so many people contend with me saying they were not black.

Er they were...now with the invasion of cultures there intermarriages, but not way after Israel left egypt!

Please no way a white child was going unnoticed in Pharaohs courts!

Nice Richard. Nice!

But FIRST, addressing Simone Stigmata: We were in Okinawa from 1975 to 1980, five whole years. Did we know you there?


Anyway, in Okinawa we had just baptized a black guy name of Tucker, as I recall. I remember vividly how he wouldn't take it well once they hit him with, "You can't hold the priesthood." But our branch president told me he took it well. When he was baptized, on couple left the church. I think it was a Saturday morning that a church friend called and told me about how the church just made the announcement. The branch president tried to contact Tucker, who had since rotated to the states, but was unable to. But he was beaming and saying how he could only guess how happy Tucker was going to be.

Soon after, my family and I went on leave and visited with my college friend and his parents. They were livid about the thing. I figured they would be. My friend's dad was a John Bircher, a Skousenite, and hung on Ezra Taft Benson's every word. They didn't go inactive, but I got an earful. One thing they couldn't abide was that there was a white Mormon guy married to a black woman, and they were now going to be sealed in the temple. "Fine," they said, "Give Negroes the priesthood. But don't allow temple marriages between them and white people!" It was kind of an extension of "but I wouldn't allow my daughter to marry one." They also had all kinds of jokes about people blessing the sacrament, doing the jokes in black lingo or black vernacular, or whatever we call it.

A year or so later I PCSed to Goodfellow AFB in Texas, and fell in with a Mormon kid (who I would end up living near in Germany over 20 years later). He didn't seem to have too many hangups about it, but had joke after joke after joke about things like seeing a black person in garments, having some old black guy doing your washing and anointing in the temple, encountering a black guy at the veil, etc., etc.

Many people are uncomfortable still. The son of a guy I know married a strikingly beautiful African American girl, and by their FB status, apparently they are happy and active LDS even still. But his dad warned me before I met them, saying, "I need to warn you: My son's wife is a 'person of color.' I don't want you to be caught off-guard." We talked about it some. This is a guy who moved to Bo Gritz country to be with "like-minded" people, and is an ultra-conservative nut case. He clearly had deep reservations about what his son did, but at least acknowledged that it was his son's and his daughter-in-law's decisions, and that's what it was about. I was thankful he took it like that.

But for those who were comfortable with racism, the "revelation" yanked the rug out from under them. Before the "revelation," one could--and often did--use all kinds of racial slurs in priesthood meeting or Sunday school. My own FIL made a joke about blacks using the N-word right in stake priesthood conference.

Loved your story cludgie.

Especially since you tell the truth about how people are still uncomfortable with blackness.

I see it daily in MORGdom being black and I am not saying this as a victim or to make anyone feel bad. NO.

I say it because TBMs would like to pretend they are oblivious, and now that I have left and cite this my issue...I am the one with the problem

I gave it 20 years...I don't know what else to say!

So sad what we do to each other.

I'm not sure I can re-create what I said. Really pisses me off. anyway, thanks. Like many people here, I have really strong opinions on this subject. We'll leave it at that.

But FIRST, addressing Simone Stigmata: We were in Okinawa from 1975 to 1980, five whole years. Did we know you there?


No. I was a missionary in Fukuoka, Japan. About 6 months of that were in Okinawa (this was in 1978 when the PH ban was lifted). I spent some time in Futenma and some time in Naha. We were so busy trying to proselyte the Japanese we didn't have much contact with the enlisted men. I do recall attending the chapel in Futenma but we only attended with the Japanese members IIRC. What I liked about Futenma was it was about the only time that I can remember using good old sit down american toilets and sleeping in a bed.

I remember it. I also remember two mission presidents, one of them the Caspar milk toast Japanese-Canadian, Pres. Yamada. (A mere look from our evil district president Doug Darnell would wither the poor man.) Then there was a Japanese-American guy who had been a dentist at the rank of colonel in the US military. He seemed nicer, but pushed the military thing too much, and I would just think, "C'mon, man. You were a dentist! A dentist!"

In 1980 when we were leaving, the church was organizing the first Japanese stake in Okinawa, and at some point it became its own mission. I guess that's probably not the case anymore. Do they still have their own stake? Their own mission?

Yeah we lived in that apartment next to the church for awhile. I was there during Yamada's tenure. They were trying to create a Stake in Fukuoka about the time I left. I don't think much has happened growth-wise in all these years and the last I heard the Okinawa mission was folded back into another mission. They might still have a Stake in Okinawa though.

My (ex)hubby served his mission in Nagoya and during that time they built a chapel there. Of course they put in the American style sit-down toilets. It's not like the chapel was used by any military or American branches or anything. He said that they had trouble with Japanese wanting to squat on top of the seat so they had to put signs up in the stalls telling them to sit.

Oh yes, the international church! But everything has to be done exactly like they do it in Sal Tlay Ka Siti. Why would they make American-style bathrooms? The military ward took over the Futenma building, that was built for the Japanese. We had church in the morning and pushed them to the afternoon. We took over the kitchen and stocked it our way. And we called all the shots. Since hubby spoke Japanese, the leaders of the Japanese ward would come to him wanting him to be the intermediary with the military ward. Some of the things they told him made him so mad he swore that if we were going to go to church we were going to go to the Japanese ward. I blew my stack. Now I'd love to re-live that and do exactly that very thing.

The Mormon military strength is not what it used to be. Back in the 70s and 80s they were king. Much of that strength has been down-sized, and it has worked out for both good and bad.

In Germany, there were four big American military stakes at one time (Frankfurt, Kaiserslautern, Munich, Stuttgart (?)), and I think they even went to a fifth, but I'm not too sure about that. The buildings all belonged to the Germans, and the Germans wards who met there had the custodial rights. It infuriated out bishop anytime the local German bishop or branch president would come and dictate some rule to him, or would inform him that the American tenants were not to do something they had been doing. His refrain was always, "Who won the war, anyhow?!" That was the Americans' catch-phrase for everything, also freely used liberally by LDS military members against LDS Germans. Like NormaRae said, the Americans would take over and run the chapel, taking it where the Germans didn't want it to go.

In a way, you could see their point: In Okinawa and in any of the wards in Germany, the local membership was small at best. In Wiesbaden, the local ward was tiny, and the American Mormons so plentiful that they had to create two wards that still bulged out everywhere. (In my ward in Wiesbaden we had to primaries. so many screaming kids!) So it was pretty easy for the Amerians to think they should own the place. But Germans aren't Japanese, and they held their ground, which just served to infuriate the Americans.

It's all gone now. Germany has one American stake for the few remaining American military still in the country. The Wiesbaden mormons have the whole chapel to themselves now, as I recall. Some chapels have folded for lack of membership. The LDS church built a big old chapel in Kassel to accomodate the Germans and the huge American population, but the Americans pulled out and left a few Germans rattling around like BBs in a boxcar.

I was actually very relieved. In the 1970's questions regarding the race-based priesthood and temple ban was one of the most difficult things that missionaries had to face. Polygamy could sort of be passed of as a "fleck of history." Most people didn't know enough to ask about the rock in the hat or Joe's playboy prophet predilictions. But the Church's racism was well-known and well-publicized.

So I was just relieved that I could at least avoid some of the awkwardness that would have been inevitable if the policy hadn't changed. My first reaction was that it was a great thing and I was happy to be around to see a revelation being given on something important.

As time went by, however, the whole 1978 "revelation" episode made me start to ask uncomfortable questions:

Why was there no effort by the prophet to explain how this new revelation was consistent with past teachings?

How could it be that an individual with black African ancestors would be unworthy to hold the priesthood or go to the temple in May 1978 and then suddenly be worthy of those "blessings" in June 1978?

Why was a church that was supposedly led by God's one-and-only living prophet and spokesman on Earth apparently playing catch-up to the moral sensibilities of the larger community instead of leading the way?

Given that the 1978 revelation appears to refute the idea that there was any doctrinal or spiritual basis for the pre-1978 policy, Why did the Churchco leadership cling so stubbornly to its racist priesthood and temple restrictions for so many generations?

Although I greeted the change with enthusiasm, it eventually helped open my eyes to the bigger picture regarding the overall bogosity of Churchco.

Why was the most important revelation given by a Mormon prophet in my lifetime essentially just a correction of revelation given to previous Mormon prophets?

In other words, the revelation did not provide us with any new and deeper insights regarding spiritual reality, or guidance on spiritual responses to technological changes or large social developments. Nope. All the "revelation" did was to attempt to undo the damage being caused by a previousl Mormon revelation. The Church leadership was simply attempting to correct a problem of its own making.

This point is moot!

When the law of Moses was given...God stated He is no respector of persons.

Anyone who wanted to join israeldom and was willing to keep the statues was WELCOME....

YUCK!

Hardly a correction..just another in the series of on going cover-ups.

Okay riddle me this?

Why hasn't there been any other revelations?

Gorspel Dacktrin listen to this podcast...It is an eye opener

http://mormonstories.org/?p=980

In this incredibly fascinating 4-part series, long-time Mormon Stories supporter Andrew Ainsworth interviews Daymon Smith Ph.D., a Mormon Anthropologist and the author of a new book called: The Book of Mammon: A Book About A Book About The Corporation That Owns The Mormons (Paperback). In this interview they discuss:

Episode 1: Federal Prosecution, Post-Manifesto Polygamy and the Rise of Mormon Fundamentalism
Episode 2: The Life and Death of the Mormon Speculative Tradition, and the Rise and Costs of Correlation
Episode 3: The LDS Church as a Corporation and the Corporation as a Church
Episode 4: Is the LDS Church Serving God, Mammon, or Both?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2011 03:28AM by AIC.

Indeed, the 1978 "revelation" was only a correction in the sense that they had to do something official in order to reverse the perverse policy that had been instituted and maintained for more than a century by previous Mormon prophets.

But at the end of the day, when you boil it all down and all is said and done and the fat lady has sung, Mormonism is a hopeless bundle of screw-ups, cover-ups, mix-ups and let-downs--and it's all hopelessly beyond correction by "revelation" or otherwise.

The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy, but the leaders preached it as a commandment anyway. The Endowment ritual was supposedly divinely inspired, but the leaders feel free to delete major portions decade after decade without giving any explanation. The Word of Wisdom in its own language is supposed to be "not by way of commandment," but they make into a commandment anyway. The whole organization has become a large open-air insane asylum and the craziest inmates are called "General Authorities." ;o)

Isn't that the truth!

How do their wives do it? Now that is a thread ready for discussion!

Where is steve benson to tell us?

WEll we need to blow the whistle in unity