Any Mormon bodybuilders out there

[Macrobolic]

Originally Posted by mntbikedude

I think it's bull****. The church was forced to leave the boundaries of the United States over religious intolerance. We were the original americans who had a different idea on marriage. No one is trying to stop the church from teaching what they want. But we do want the church to leave others alone that want to believe what they want.

I think you missed the point. Elder Oaks was talking about instances such as the extreme backlash from those who had differing views (one instance could point to the huge demonstrations, that were not always peaceful, near temples). Those who voted for Prop 8 voted their conscience, and because of it, were intimidated and persecuted.

Did you see any LDS people demonstrating outside of Gay/Lesbian organizations buildings?
Did you hear about LDS going and taking out Vote against Prop 8 signs from people's yards, breaking car windows of people who had signs to vote for against Prop 8?

I sure didn't hear about it, and that would have been big news. And yet, all of those things did occur, just from the opposite side.

Pictures are worth a thousand words:





Because "Mormons" were the ones who brought up the proposition and were the sole proponents of Prop 8. Wait wut?



Hmmm, getting onto their property now? Doesn't seem like they're very interested in the freedom of religion.

[Runt20]

Wow those signs and posters and vandalism were really depressing Just remember that the righteous will be persecuted and then blessed in the end.

[cf233]

Another Mormon from Idaho here. Just starting to get in shape again and put on some pounds.

[Runt20]

Originally Posted by cf233

Another Mormon from Idaho here. Just starting to get in shape again and put on some pounds.

Hey there! I am from CO but I am at BYU-I in Rexburg right now!! Where are you at

[cf233]

Originally Posted by Runt20

Hey there! I am from CO but I am at BYU-I in Rexburg right now!! Where are you at

I live in IF now, but I graduated from BYU-I a couple of years ago. They've been doing a bunch of construction up there. Maybe they'll put in a nicer gym in the Hart.

[Runt20]

Originally Posted by cf233

I live in IF now, but I graduated from BYU-I a couple of years ago. They've been doing a bunch of construction up there. Maybe they'll put in a nicer gym in the Hart.

Ya they are remodeling it right now. It should be done in the next two years!

[mntbikedude]

Originally Posted by Macrobolic

I think you missed the point. Elder Oaks was talking about instances such as the extreme backlash from those who had differing views (one instance could point to the huge demonstrations, that were not always peaceful, near temples). Those who voted for Prop 8 voted their conscience, and because of it, were intimidated and persecuted.

Did you see any LDS people demonstrating outside of Gay/Lesbian organizations buildings?
Did you hear about LDS going and taking out Vote against Prop 8 signs from people's yards, breaking car windows of people who had signs to vote for against Prop 8?

I sure didn't hear about it, and that would have been big news. And yet, all of those things did occur, just from the opposite side.

Pictures are worth a thousand words:





Because "Mormons" were the ones who brought up the proposition and were the sole proponents of Prop 8. Wait wut?



Hmmm, getting onto their property now? Doesn't seem like they're very interested in the freedom of religion.

When you consider how much the church did behind the scenes in organizing this campaign and the majority of the money was raised by the church. But they kept it quiet until it was later proven that the church was the major backer. All to stop someone from being married, the very church that was known for their own original idea of alternative marriage.

This was wrong and the church will someday be forced to change just like they did regarding polygamy and blacks. They have always used the same argument to keep members in the fold. That the persecution proves that they are on Gods side. Anyone that has spent any time on the R/P knows that is every religions argument.

I don't know how to embed but this video isn't just still shots it shows the church in their true deceptive light. OMT I can guarentee that if it had gone the other way the church wouldn't have just rolled over and said well ok I guess thats the voice of the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upWb2jBk5xw

[Runt20]

Oh boy. Now that is just misguided.

[cf233]

Originally Posted by mntbikedude

I don't know how to embed but this video isn't just still shots it shows the church in their true deceptive light. OMT I can guarentee that if it had gone the other way the church wouldn't have just rolled over and said well ok I guess thats the voice of the people.

I'm sorry, but that is such a horrible hatchet job.

I like how the quotes from General Conferences have nothing to do with gay marriage, but are only taken completely out of context. For example, when you hear Pres. Monson say, "there will be nothing in this world that can defeat us," Here is the quote in full:

From the holy scriptures we read, ?Behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in [Him], they who have endured the crosses of the world, ? they shall inherit the kingdom of God, ? and their joy shall be full forever.?

I testify to you that our promised blessings are beyond measure. Though the storm clouds may gather, though the rains may pour down upon us, our knowledge of the gospel and our love of our Heavenly Father and of our Savior will comfort and sustain us and bring joy to our hearts as we walk uprightly and keep the commandments. There will be nothing in this world that can defeat us.

My beloved brothers and sisters, fear not. Be of good cheer. The future is as bright as your faith.

I declare that God lives and that He hears and answers our prayers. His Son, Jesus Christ, is our Savior and our Redeemer. Heaven?s blessings await us. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

And they obviously did not get permission from the Church to use this clip, so not only are they taking things way out of context but they're also probably breaking the law with this video.

Also, their point that the Mormon Church spent a lot of money on Prop 8 is a complete strawman argument. The fact is the gay lobby spent more money. They just can't seem to admit that the reason they lost is because the majority of Americans are against gay mariage.

[mntbikedude]

Originally Posted by cf233

They just can't seem to admit that the reason they lost is because the majority of Americans are against gay mariage.

Isn't it funny that when the shoe was on the other foot that Mormons were willing to fight for their right to plural marriage and their outrage over it wasn't just a few picket signs ie the danites and mountain meadows masacre to name just a few. The only reason the church gave up plural marriage is because they were about to lose everything.

And yet the church wants gays to just walk away from their right to marriage a right they had already acheived. I wonder how the members of the church would feel if their right to marriage was taken away.

The tide is turning, it may not be tomorrow it may take 100 years but the church will change. They have no other choice, their miserable failed policies of the past regarding gays have been a disaster.

[Zeppo1]

Just a quick note to say that I am Mormon and that not everyone thinks and acts exactly the same. I was totally against the passing of Proposition 8 in California. And there were any Mormons who felt the way I do. The Church received a great deal of complaints from members of the LDS faith on this topic. It divided those in the church.

While I know many people who backed the church on their stance. Not one of the friends I have did, and they are mostly all Mormon.

[ModernMoroni]

um...MountainBikedude. might wanna take a look in the scriptures we read. the Whole Soddum and Gomorrah part? remember that? the church isnt going to ever change their stance on Gay Marriage because its a sin. no matter what the people say. that doesnt matter. its what our Heavenly Father has told us that matters. And when polygamy was practiced in the church, not everyone was practicing it. Polygamy was a calling. and Polygamy has been given as instruction from the Lord from time to time when the need arises and is done away with when there was no longer a need for it. At the beginning of the time of the church Polygamy was needed for protection. But later on it no longer was needed.

[cf233]

Originally Posted by mntbikedude

Isn't it funny that when the shoe was on the other foot that Mormons were willing to fight for their right to plural marriage and their outrage over it wasn't just a few picket signs ie the danites and mountain meadows masacre to name just a few. The only reason the church gave up plural marriage is because they were about to lose everything.

The Danites and Mountain Meadows Massacre had nothing to do with plural marriage. The Danites lasted until about 1838 and MMM was in 1857. Plural marriage was not illegal during this time. MMM was a tragedy, and I'm sure that the people responsible received what they deserved.

[GRAMATONNAGS]

I haven't been sick in a long time. NOT SWINE FLU! It's more like swine with the flu.

It was interesting. I took a week off from lifting. I often do it every 2-3 months. I usually do it when I get sick but since I haven't been sick for quite some time... Half a week after being back to lifting I get sick. Got another few days off I guess.

On a side note, anyone here plays xbox online and is getting Modern Warfare 2? Yeah, I'm a weird geek.

[chud50]

non-mormon utahn here... whatup?

[chud50]

Originally Posted by mntbikedude

When you consider how much the church did behind the scenes in organizing this campaign and the majority of the money was raised by the church. But they kept it quiet until it was later proven that the church was the major backer. All to stop someone from being married, the very church that was known for their own original idea of alternative marriage.

This was wrong and the church will someday be forced to change just like they did regarding polygamy and blacks. They have always used the same argument to keep members in the fold. That the persecution proves that they are on Gods side. Anyone that has spent any time on the R/P knows that is every religions argument.

I don't know how to embed but this video isn't just still shots it shows the church in their true deceptive light. OMT I can guarentee that if it had gone the other way the church wouldn't have just rolled over and said well ok I guess thats the voice of the people.

the church is quite powerful, and rarely face criticism, i don't feel bad for their members or leaders at all.

[chud50]

Originally Posted by ModernMoroni

um...MountainBikedude. might wanna take a look in the scriptures we read. the Whole Soddum and Gomorrah part? remember that? the church isnt going to ever change their stance on Gay Marriage because its a sin. no matter what the people say. that doesnt matter. its what our Heavenly Father has told us that matters. And when polygamy was practiced in the church, not everyone was practicing it. Polygamy was a calling. and Polygamy has been given as instruction from the Lord from time to time when the need arises and is done away with when there was no longer a need for it. At the beginning of the time of the church Polygamy was needed for protection. But later on it no longer was needed.

right, because the mormon church never changes their beliefs... ever. lol. that's what mormonism is all about... revelations, especially when facing pressure from outside sources IE the government threatening to take away tax exempt status. remember when blacks weren't allowed into the priesthood? or polygamy was a-ok? this is a dumb debate, and doesn't belong in this forum, does it?

[chud50]

Rep from: ModernMoroni your not even mormon so get out of a mormon thread that you dont understand anything bout our church unless you've lived it.


by that logic you shouldn't talk about gays, because you've never lived it, therefore you could never understand it. oh, and you've never been a non-mormon, so you shouldn't comment on anything but mormonism. child please.

[mntbikedude]

Originally Posted by chud50

Rep from: ModernMoroni your not even mormon so get out of a mormon thread that you dont understand anything bout our church unless you've lived it.


by that logic you shouldn't talk about gays, because you've never lived it, therefore you could never understand it. oh, and you've never been a non-mormon, so you shouldn't comment on anything but mormonism. child please.

Sorry man he means well, keep in mind he's just 17. I may be a rebellious Mormon but I'm still a mormon. And enough of a mormon to know that we never want someone to not feel welcome to make comments of ask questions, even or especially when they are the hard questions.

BTW MM chud lives in Salt Lake City, he is immersed in mormons he deals withus on every turn. He see's us and our church up close and personal. Sometimes people can see us clearer by observing rather then being in the middle of church.

[chud50]

Originally Posted by mntbikedude

Sorry man he means well, keep in mind he's just 17. I may be a rebellious Mormon but I'm still a mormon. And enough of a mormon to know that we never want someone to not feel welcome to make comments of ask questions, even or especially when they are the hard questions.

BTW MM chud lives in Salt Lake City, he is immersed in mormons he deals withus on every turn. He see's us and our church up close and personal. Sometimes people can see us clearer by observing rather then being in the middle of church.

no worries, i'm sure i came off as offensive. i live in slc, but work in orem, and i even lived there for 7 years as a kid. it is quite often difficult, as i'm sure being mormon in a non LDS community is. my brother converted about 15 years ago, and i have plenty of LDS friends. I know enough about the church to form my own opinions, even if they upset some people. Thanks for the comments.

[Runt20]

Originally Posted by chud50

Rep from: ModernMoroni your not even mormon so get out of a mormon thread that you dont understand anything bout our church unless you've lived it.


by that logic you shouldn't talk about gays, because you've never lived it, therefore you could never understand it. oh, and you've never been a non-mormon, so you shouldn't comment on anything but mormonism. child please.

Hey there. I'm a recent convert. Less then two years in and I can tell you that the church means no harm or ill will against anyone. Yes we have certain beliefs about marriage between a man and woman but you don't find mormons gay bashing (unless they are just jerks!)

[Macrobolic]

Originally Posted by Runt20

Hey there. I'm a recent convert. Less then two years in and I can tell you that the church means no harm or ill will against anyone. Yes we have certain beliefs about marriage between a man and woman but you don't find mormons gay bashing (unless they are just jerks!)

Exactly. And actually, the church backed a law that was finally passed now in Utah that makes it illegal to discriminated against gays and lesbians.

http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-mo...,1154837.story

[chud50]

Originally Posted by Runt20

Hey there. I'm a recent convert. Less then two years in and I can tell you that the church means no harm or ill will against anyone. Yes we have certain beliefs about marriage between a man and woman but you don't find mormons gay bashing (unless they are just jerks!)

i never said anyone was gay bashing. i have a problem with religious groups (including christian churches) spending money to pass legislature about something that doesn't effect them. gays aren't allowed to be mormons, so why should they care if they get married? it's not like they're getting married in the temple, or anywhere else that 'matters' to your church. also, the gays demonstrated in public, while the church raised money mostly behind the scenes, but it was just as damaging to the whole prop 8 cause (obviously). i honestly just came into this thread because i didn't see the 'utah bodybuilders' thread. i'll leave as to not ruffle more feathers.

[Macrobolic]

Originally Posted by chud50

i never said anyone was gay bashing. i have a problem with religious groups (including christian churches) spending money to pass legislature about something that doesn't effect them. gays aren't allowed to be mormons, so why should they care if they get married? it's not like they're getting married in the temple, or anywhere else that 'matters' to your church. also, the gays demonstrated in public, while the church raised money mostly behind the scenes, but it was just as damaging to the whole prop 8 cause (obviously). i honestly just came into this thread because i didn't see the 'utah bodybuilders' thread. i'll leave as to not ruffle more feathers.

That is actually incorrect. You can be gay and be mormon. However, you cannot be gay, date other men (obviously can't have relations with them) and be temple worthy. However, that also goes for people who are not in line with any commandment (whether it be the law of chastity, tithing, word of wisdom, etc.)

The church itself did not raise the funds, the lone members did. The church did not donate any monies (other than what is allowed by law) to the Prop 8 fight.

[mntbikedude]

Originally Posted by Runt20

Hey there. I'm a recent convert. Less then two years in and I can tell you that the church means no harm or ill will against anyone. Yes we have certain beliefs about marriage between a man and woman but you don't find mormons gay bashing (unless they are just jerks!)

Oh wow I can't believe you said that. Gays have been bashed since the beginning of religion. Sodom and Gammorah comes to mind. I don't have time to find all the formal gay bashing but you can read the chapter on homosexuality in the Miracle of Forgiveness starters.

Not to mention the many sting operations done at BYU, where after the homo's were flushed out they were given the choice of being excommunicated or they could go to therapy. (circa 1976) The therapy at the time consisted of hooking your genitals up to electrodes while viewing gay porn and having them shocked. Sounds like some anti-mormon literature doesn't it. I know it happened I was in LDS therapy at the time.

Being closeted I would hear first hand the gay bashing that happens all the time in Quorum meeting, across the pulpit.

I have had to listen all year to members going off on how gays wanting to fall in love, make a commitment and get married would be the destruction of the worlds morality. They think it is a slippery slope to hell. Having lived being a closeted gay in Utah I cannot fathom how they can see this as being bad.

As though the past 30 years of gays living closeted secret dangerous lifes was a better way. Recently I attended a conference in SLC for gay mormons it's funny because most of the people I talked to had served as a bishop, stake president or high councelman and they were gay.

If everyone that was gay in Utah suddenly came out of the closet you would be amazed. This has to end as long as the church treats gays this way you will continue to have gays in sham marriages to straight people. You will still have dangerous random hook-ups happening. You will continue to have suicides, drug addiction ect (yes they will always happen) but the self-loathing that the church causes gays to feel produces a much higher percentage of these problems.

I know that encouraging gays to learn how to be themselves, how to form real relationships and make those relationships monogamous. That is the only solution, I know I am on Gods side of the line. I know that the church will someday change and that after enough people lives have been destroyed, after enough suicides have occured, after enough families have had the whole world turned upside down because dad finally came out.

At some point the heavens will open, the church members will be ready, the brethren will put aside their own pre-judice and truth will prevail.

What has been done in the name of God to homosexuals is abuse. Abuse in the most horrible and cruel variety, it is abuse of the heart. There will be weeping in heaven over homosexuality but it will not be from homosexuals it will be from the rest who will have the understanding of what they have done in the name of religion.

[Macrobolic]

mtnbikedude, it has been a sin, is a sin, and will always be a sin. the churches stance on this won't change. This is a much different situation than with any other situation in the past. Polygamy was necessary at the time, was a calling, and was taken away because as in the Articles of Faith, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". It became against the law to practice polygamy, and therefore, it was only logical to stop the practice.

With the issue of blacks on the priesthood, I guess you don't know about the several blacks that were given the priesthood, in the 1800's!

http://www.blacklds.org/history

I also like how people skim over the fact that Joseph Smith was an abolishonist, and ran for President of the United States on a platform of freeing the slaves. I guess you didn't know about Elijah Abel (a black man) who was given the priesthood in 1836 and eventually became a member of the Seventy, nor Walker Lewis, another black man, given the priesthood in 1844, nor William McCary in 1846, nor Elijah Abel's son in 1900, nor in 1955 when many members of the church who were black in Melanesia were given the priesthood.

The times in the 1960's and 70's is what lead the leaders of the church to continually ask the Lord about the blacks and the priesthood. Throughout the history of the world, prophets have been given revelations because they had a question and asked. This is most likely the reason why this revelation was given at this time.

But both of those instances did NOT change a sin to not being a sin. The practice of homosexuality is a sin, and is spoken about both in the Old and New Testament.

[mntbikedude]

Originally Posted by Macrobolic

mtnbikedude, it has been a sin, is a sin, and will always be a sin. the churches stance on this won't change. This is a much different situation than with any other situation in the past. Polygamy was necessary at the time, was a calling, and was taken away because as in the Articles of Faith, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". It became against the law to practice polygamy, and therefore, it was only logical to stop the practice..

Does that mean if the government passes a law allowing gays the right to marriage that the church will change then?

Originally Posted by Macrobolic

I also like how people skim over the fact that Joseph Smith was an abolishonist, and ran for President of the United States on a platform of freeing the slaves. I guess you didn't know about Elijah Abel (a black man) who was given the priesthood in 1836 and eventually became a member of the Seventy, nor Walker Lewis, another black man, given the priesthood in 1844, nor William McCary in 1846, nor Elijah Abel's son in 1900, nor in 1955 when many members of the church who were black in Melanesia were given the priesthood.

The times in the 1960's and 70's is what lead the leaders of the church to continually ask the Lord about the blacks and the priesthood. Throughout the history of the world, prophets have been given revelations because they had a question and asked. This is most likely the reason why this revelation was given at this time..

Yes that is true about Joeseph Smith and the blacks. The fact is that the church did receive a revelation giving blacks the priesthood. But where is the revelation taking it away? There is none, why don't we still teach that blacks are from the seed of cain? Because it was never true it was all based on the prejudice of the time.

Plural marriage was taught as being here forever the fact is we didn't change it just because the law changed we changed after we had no other choice.

Originally Posted by Macrobolic

But both of those instances did NOT change a sin to not being a sin. The practice of homosexuality is a sin, and is spoken about both in the Old and New Testament.

You are right sin will always be sin. And being promiscuous will always have consequences. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Nor did Joesph Smith, historians are coming to recognise that the story of sodom probably didn't happen the way we were taught. That the story was used as a way to propagate a myth by people with an agenda. Just like the blacks being from cain is fable meant to propagate a myth. And make it ok to hate on a group of people.

[Macrobolic]

Originally Posted by mntbikedude

Does that mean if the government passes a law allowing gays the right to marriage that the church will change then?

Probably not. They wouldn't be forced to perform the marriages (at least hopefully it wouldn't) but this was one of the hang ups with Prop 8. The language of the bill was such that gay people could sue someone for NOT performing a marriage, and this would be against the freedom of religion.

Yes that is true about Joeseph Smith and the blacks. The fact is that the church did receive a revelation giving blacks the priesthood. But where is the revelation taking it away? There is none, why don't we still teach that blacks are from the seed of cain?

The root of that has been debated over and over and the best result is that it is inconclusive. There were various revelations given to Joseph Smith that were never recorded so it's any one's guess.

You are right sin will always be sin. And being promiscuous will always have consequences. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Nor did Joesph Smith, historians are coming to recognise that the story of sodom probably didn't happen the way we were taught. That the story was used as a way to propagate a myth by people with an agenda. Just like the blacks being from cain is fable meant to propagate a myth. And make it ok to hate on a group of people.

Like I said, the topic of homosexuality was written about in both the Old and New Testament. Whether it be by the voice of god himself or by his prophets, it is the same. Prophets both in the Old Testament, the apostles in the New Testament, and the Prophets in more recent times have all spoken on the subject. It's a losing battle you are fighting, to have the church accept homosexuality.

[Macrobolic]

Also, to address that it was because of prejudice, let's take a look at the members' of the church stance on the issue.

1833: Free People of Color Editorial Published
W.W. Phelps publishes a controversial editorial in the Evening and Morning Star titled "Free People of Color." It outlines procedures for the migration of free blacks to Missouri.Missouri is a slave state that beat any free black crossing into or out of Missouri with 10 lashes on his or her bare back. Needless to say the Missourians react very negatively to the editorial and reprint part of it in the St. Louis newspapers. This is a spark that leads to much violence against the Mormons and is one of the factors leading to the Mormons eventual expulsion from the state.

This lead to:
1833: Missourians Write Mob Manifesto
The local Missourians don?€™t like the Phelps editorial and respond with The Manifesto of the Mob. This manifesto calls for the "removal" of the Mormons. Among other things it says:"In a late number of the Star, published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free Negroes and mulattoes from other states to become "Mormons," and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors. It manifests a desire on the part of their society, to inflict on our society an injury that they know would be to us entirely insupportable, and one of the surest means of driving us from the country; for it would require none of the supernatural gifts that they pretend to, to see that the introduction of such a caste among us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed. We believe it a duty we owe to ourselves, our wives, and children, to the cause of public morals, to remove them from among us, as we are not prepared to give up our pleasant places and goodly possessions to them or to receive into the bosom of our families, as fit companions for wives and daughters, the degraded and corrupted free Negroes and mulattos that are now invited to settle among us. We agree to use such means as may be sufficient to remove them, and to that and we each pledge to each other are bodily powers, our lives, fortunes and sacred honors."

1833: D&C 101:77 is Revealed
79: Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

1836: Nondiscriminatory Rules Published for Governing the Temple in Kirtland
The rules provided for "old or young, rich or poor, male or female, bond or free, black or white, believer or unbeliever" (History of the Church 2: 368-69)

1842: Joseph Smith Writes in His Personal Journal that Slaves Should be Set Free
He writes that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought "into a free country and set free, educate them and give them equal rights." [30 Dec. 1842 Joseph Smith Journal as quoted in Neither White Nor Black, Bush and Mauss (Signature Books, 1984), p. 62]

1843: Joseph Smith Makes Statements about Blacks
Blacks have souls (an item that others didn't necessarily believe) and that they are a product of their environment. Given an equal environment they would be on the same level as whites.

1867: Deseret Constitution Amended to Extend Rights To All
Brigham Young wrote Thomas Kane in 1869 the Constitution of the State of Deseret had been amended February 4, 1867, to eliminate the words "free, white, male" from voting requirements by a vote of 14,000 for and 30 against." (October 26, 1869, in Brigham Young papers, LDS Church Archives.)

1869: the "Neutral in the Preexistence" Explanation Denied by Brigham Young
When asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven, Brigham Young answers, "no, they were not, there were no neutral [spirits] in heaven at the time of the rebellion, all took sides. All spirits are pure that came from the presence of God." (Journal History, 25 December 1869, citing Wilford Woodruff's journal.)

Oops, I guess that dispels the "neutral" argument by anti-mormons

1879: Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin Claim Joseph Smith Instituted the Priesthood Ban
Smoot, who owned two slaves, and Coltrin claim that Joseph Smith instituted the ban in the 1830s and dropped Abel from the priesthood. (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, p. 170, Special Collections, BYU). Coltrin is working from an old memory and makes several factual errors. Joseph F. Smith provides the two certificates indicating Abel's status as a Seventy, which contradict Coltrin's claims, as does Abel's patriarchal blessing, which is read aloud at the meeting. Joseph F. Smith says he thinks Brother Coltrin's memory is incorrect.

One interesting note that may be relevant if accurate: Both Coltrin and Smoot claim to have asked Joseph Smith what to do with the "Negroes in the Southern States." "[The Prophet] said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, but not to confer the priesthood upon them." (Above sources as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, pg. 60.)

This is significant to the topic of where did the ban come from. ^^^

1912: LDS First Presidency Again Denies the "Neutral in Heaven" Idea
Just as Brigham Young denied it, Joseph F. Smith and Charles Penrose deny this theory in a First Presidency letter written to M. Knudson on January 13, 1912. "There is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church [in support of the idea] that the Negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him." (As quoted in Neither White Nor Black, Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, pg. 86)

1940: Committee Studies Black Issue
J. Reuben Clark, Jr., recommends a committee be appointed to "make some ruling or re-affirm whatever ruling that has been made on this question in the past as to whether or not one drop of negro blood deprives a man of the right to receive the priesthood" (Council Meeting January 25, 1940, George Albert Smith Papers, LDS Church Archives).

Hmmm, looks like they had been questioning whether or not to give blacks the preisthood since the 40's, not the 70's

1958: Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies the Church's Position on Equality for Blacks
"No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the Negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They should be equal to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They should be equal in the matter of education. They should not be barred from obtaining knowledge and becoming proficient in any field of science, art or mechanical occupation. They should be free to choose any kind of employment, to go into business in any field they may choose and to make their lives as happy as it is possible without interference from white men, labor unions or from any other source. In their defense of these privileges the members of the Church will stand." (Answers to Gospel Questions 2:185)

Smith goes on to say "if a Negro is baptized and remains true and loyal, he will enter the celestial kingdom." But he also says, "but we cannot promise him that he will receive the priesthood."


So, I'm failing to see where the leaders of the Church were so prejudiced.

[cf233]

mntbikedude,

I'm not sure if you've heard about this, but it does seem that the Church is slowly starting to change part of it's views about homosexuals.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13758070

I don't see the Church really ever changing it's stance on gay marriage, but it does seem that the members are becoming more aware of the situation and more understanding. We've learned a lot about homosexuality in only the last decade or so and the mistakes they made in the past, in my opinion, are merely due to their ignorance about the subject. As we learn more about homosexuality and the causes of it, people's views will change.