Posted by: Jay | January 19, 2008

My talk with the Stake President

I just realized today that I haven’t given an update to my “denied a voice” post last fall. If you remember I talked to the Bishop about some, IMO, racist remarks during Sunday School. I was basically told not to talk about it and to let “sleeping dogs lie”.

About a month after my talk with a member of the bishopric I went to exchange my temple recommend for a new one with the bar code. I explained to the Stake President what happened. As I was explaining, I could see the patronizing look develop on his face. He was thinking something along the lines of, “You poor child, you just don’t understand what you’re talking about”. I could tell he wasn’t going to take me seriously.

After explaining to him what happened and that I didn’t feel that the bishopric was going to do anything to correct the false doctrine, he told me that it happened over a month ago and we should just let it go. Apparently, bringing it up would only open old wounds and not be instructive. I don’t really understand this mentality as these same people are likely to repeat the trash they did in Sunday school at a future date if they were not corrected. However, I was told that my ward did not show a pattern of teaching false doctrine and so it was nothing to worry about. As if I was attacking the ward or the Bishop! This guy clearly didn’t understand my concern. He then reassured me that if he was Bishop of my ward he would have handled it differently, but now the deed was done and we should just forget it ever happened. I really didn’t see the harm in him calling the Bishop and having a talk about it to make sure everything was OK. Somehow that was not something that crossed his mind.

It’s amazing to me that a simple statement could have been made in Sunday school to correct the falsities expressed that one week, yet nothing was done. No need to single anyone out, humiliate them or burn them at the stake, after all I realize where they got the ideas in the first place. It’s not like they were original thoughts. They were passed down by racist leaders of the LDS Church, but to allow them to continue to be vocalized when the Church has openly condemned such ideas is wrong. People need to realize that not giving the blacks the priesthood was never of God and all the excuses to justify it are wrong, period. But if people did that they would have to admit that a prophet can be racist and I understand that’s a hard pill to swallow.



  1. Jay,
    Your picture makes you appear that you are still drinking milk and eating very little meat.

    There are two references in the Old Testament regarding “those” who were “put from” the priesthood. So at times in the past, the precedent and action of witholding the priesthood has been established.

    However, you seldom have the presence of the priesthood anyway exept when in the presence of the LORD, in the Temple, or when performing an ordinance of the Priesthood.
    “Hence many are called, but few are chosen.”
    “That they [the rights of the priesthood] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or authority of that man.”(D&C 121:34-36, 39-40) (v.37)
    Also if you wear the priesthood garment unworthily you condemn yourself as well as those
    with whom you associate. From The Temple Prophet, EZEKIEL…..
    Ezek 44:9-31: 17 “And it shall be that when they enter at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and wool shall not be on them while they are ministering in the gates of the inner court and in the house. 18 “Linen turbans shall be on their heads, and linen undergarments shall be on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything which makes them sweat. 19 “And when they go out into the outer court, into the outer court to the people, they shall put off their garments in which they have been ministering and lay them in the holy chambers; then they shall put on other garments that they may not transmit holiness to the people with their garments. 20 “Also they shall not shave their heads, yet they shall not let their locks grow long; they shall only trim the hair of their heads. 21 “Nor shall any of the priests drink wine when they enter the inner court. 22 “And they shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman but shall take virgins from the offspring of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest.
    (American Polygamy)

    IMHO.. the garment should not be worn outside the temple to be sweated in and other p’d on nor shown to non believers. Only when administering to the ordinances of the priesthood or when you are in the temple.

    ACTIVE APOSTATES OR INACTIVE APOSTATES, you have your choice; as we are all under condemnation.
    We are a bunch of fools thinking that we have it all, we may have most of it, but actively or inactively we will be judged more harshly than those not knowing of the Book of Mormon nor having access to modern day revelation from the current leadership of the brethren. They, the brethren are informed, they are concerned about our salvation, they mourn over us and how “our minds have been darkened because of unbelief, and because we have treated lightly the things we have received”

    Take care my brother..


  2. Your picture makes you appear that you are still drinking milk and eating very little meat.

    Thanks for the complement … I think?

    I’m not sure what the rest of your response had to do with the post. Do you think it is OK that we continue to repeat myths and folklore in Church meetings?

    I know that my Stake President and his counselors are good people, I just disagree with how this was handled.

  3. I can’t figure out JGK’ s comment.

    But Jay, in connection with the post, our church family went through Genesis 10. And most all of them know about Bruce McConkie’s comment about Ham and the Negroid race.

    So you have every right to be sensitive about this issue.

  4. Thanks Todd.

  5. Jay,

    If you are so concerned about this, why don’t you raise your hand in class and say something? You won’t have the imprimatur of the ward leadership, but do you really need this? One thing that has helped me overcome my questions about LDS doctrines is to stop putting so much stock in what leaders say and allow myself to be guided by the Holy Spirit and to take responsibility for my own relationship with God, not to always look to the leaders for advice, counsel, doctrine etc.

    If you do this with a smile, an optimistic attitude, and without being confrontational you will most likely be successful in doing this.

  6. Hi Jay.. it was a compliment.. stay cool bro.

    The core of my post was three fold..
    1. There were those who were put forth from
    the priesthood. Words from Bible.(Ezra and
    Nehemiah) No racial reference made,
    however they sought out their geneology, as
    it had to do with inter marriages.
    Bruce R. hmmm. (shot allot from the lip)
    I have many black friends of whom do hold
    and honor the priesthood.

    2. That all of us, including the ladies, do not
    spiritually conduct ourselves 100% of the
    time in such a manner to retain the
    priesthood. (Endowed ladies hold priesthood)

    3. That the garment should be worn only when
    attending to priesthood ordinances. Not to be
    worn as part of our day to day work
    vestaments as its purpose is to demonstrate
    our willingness to bow our knee and accept
    the teachings of the LORD and remind us of
    the higher covenants made in the temples,
    not to demonstrate to others that we
    are”temple worthy” and more or less brag
    about how good we are.

    God Bless,


  7. An inquisitive/question for you.

    I am impressed with the photo “Ocean Mist” I believe it is labeled.

    Where is this scene located?

    thank you,


  8. David,
    That is good advice. If I had been in the class I would have raised my hand. In my original post I explained that on that Sunday I had decided to go to Gospel Principle class instead of Gospel Doctrine. I would have had no knowledge of the event if my wife had not been there. She, and I’m sure others, was hesitant to say anything because she knew very little about the subject and was worried about creating a contentious environment in Sunday School. Since my wonderful wife, and no one else, corrected what was presented as Church doctrine and because she was reluctant to talk to our leaders about it, I felt a responsibility to bring it to their attention. When I spoke with a member of my Bishopric, he told me not to talk about it. I asked if I was allowed to voice my opinion in the future if the subject came up. To his credit he said he had no problem with that.

    I have children in this ward and I would be very upset if these views were ever repeated to them. There are also a couple of black members that happened to not be in the room (thankfully) when the comments were made. The fact that several people felt comfortable vocalizing these things in Sunday School means there is still much educating on this subject that needs to be done among the members in my ward. Somehow they have not gotten the picture that the things they repeated have been rejected by the Church. I would not be so concerned if there had been opposition to their comments. Since there was none I was and am highly concerned. It is not my place to educate people on the matter, so I remain frustrated when I see nothing being done to correct the situation. With that said, I have respected the wishes of my Bishop and Stake President in not bringing this up at Church meetings. Privately, I continue to work through my frustrations by speaking with friends and the few that ask my opinion on the matter. After this post I will not be posting about it further.

    I am not accusing the members or leaders of being racist. Nor do I think this is the most important problem facing the Church. However, the statements of past leaders still remain with us and I personally feel it is important to speak out when they are repeated especially in a Church setting and label them what they are, racist statements made by otherwise good men.

  9. JGoldy,

    Thank you for clarifying yourself. I wasn’t sure if I was being rebuked or agreed with.

    (Endowed ladies hold priesthood)

    So you’re saying that women can hold the priesthood? Is this the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood? I don’t know if many LDS members would agree with you on that one. If this is the case why don’t we have women Bishops, SP, Apostles or Prophets? If women do hold the priesthood it must be very restricted in how they can use it because none of them know they have it.

  10. Jay, God Bless You. You are a good one, keep asking questions, it is good for spiritual growth.

    “sots”, a friend of mine has said: ” that very little knowledge is of original thought in the dispensation of the fullness of times and we humbly beg your indulgence for the use of any thoughts, statements or unrevealed revelations that someone may have had, that resembles the words that follow: (But no one has a monopoly on truth)

    Obvious Importance of Temples:

    Sisters who labor in the House of the Lord can lay your hands upon your sisters, and with divine authority, because the Lord recognizes positions which you occupy . . . because the Lord has placed authority upon you. Temple ordinances performed by women are binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.
    Authority and Priesthood are two different things. In the current LDS Church, there are two meanings to the word “authority.” “Authority” means both power and permission. In the first sense authority is the priesthood power of God.

    Through the endowment both men and women receive God’s authority or power of the Melchizedek priesthood. Men also receive priesthood power through ordination to specific office. The second sense of authority is the permission of the church. Neither males nor females can exercise their priesthood without permission of the church. However, both males and females have received such permission from the church in various ways.

    For LDS women Melchizedek priesthood does not come in stages of ordination but in the temple endowment. Historically LDS women also have received church authority to exercise their Melchizedek priesthood power in behalf of others. Like the men, sisters receive the ordinance of being set apart as missionaries, temple ordinance workers, and presiding officers such as auxiliary presidents. And as already discussed LDS church leaders have given verbal and written authority for LDS women to perform priesthood ordinances including blessing and healing. Church policy suspended that permission in 1946 but could reinstate it at any time. In addition LDS church leaders could extend permission for endowed women to administer the sacrament, baptize, confirm, and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, since those ordinances are within the powers of anyone who has received the Melchizedek priesthood.
    LDS women already have God’s priesthood of spiritual power. Without asking permission they may draw on the power of the Melchizedek priesthood that is theirs by birthright and by divine endowment. However, it is necessary for endowed women to receive permission of the church to use their priesthood in church settings to administer the sacrament, baptize, confirm, or administer temple ordinances. Without ordination to priesthood offices, each endowed LDS woman already has the opportunity to fulfill in her life the prophet’s promise: “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”


  11. I’ve heard this type of thing before, but it is usually from LDS femenists that are upset that the priesthood was given to women (in the temple) during the 19th century. They are upset because they are not allowed to use that priesthood today and are not allowed to hold priesthood leadership positions. Do you think they have a right to be upset or do they just not know they already have the priesthood?

    Also, if you don’t mind me asking, are you a member of the LDS Church or some other branch of Mormonism (CoC, FLDS, Strangite, etc.)? It doesn’t really matter to me, but I would like to know where you are coming from.

  12. “Do you think they have a right to be upset or do they just not know they already have the priesthood?”

    You are correct. They Just Do Not Know They Already Have The Priesthood.. (the endowed ladies)

    And at the risk of sounding vane and proud:

    I am a third generation Kimball mtDNA, forefathers are Welsh, a HP, Priesthood Lineage through Spencer W. Kimball, Heber J. Grant, George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young, The Prophet Joseph Smith, Peter, James and John and The Savior Jesus Christ. I follow and sustain the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Gordon B. Hinckley and all the current leaders of the LDS Church. And rarely question my leaders in spiritual matters.

    And you my brother ?


  13. Wow, that is quite a pedigree:) My parents are both converts to the Church. I used to rarely question my leaders, but that is not the case anymore. I believe that most of what they say is good. Some of the things they say, given my understanding of LDS doctrine, do not make sense. I have learned that one must listen carefully to the words they say and make decisions for themselves what it true and what is their opinion. This is the case even if a prophet says, “thus saith the Lord”.

    I am willing to admit that I am not the fountain of all knowledge and could be wrong, but baring any rational explanation or a spiritual confirmation of others’ thoughts to the contrary, I must conclude that I am correct. I say this fully understanding that my views may change on a subject as I receive more knowledge about it. Any honest person would say the same.

    You are correct. They Just Do Not Know They Already Have The Priesthood.. (the endowed ladies)

    I do not mean to be offensive, so please don’t take it that way. How is it that you know they have the priesthood, but the endowed women in the Church do not? Also, why are they not told that they have the priesthood by GBH or other Church authorities?

    I believe in Christ, the Holy Ghost and God the Eternal Father. They are the ones I look to for truth. I believe that the prophet GBH and past prophets are helpers of sorts. They kind of point us in the right direction, much like a Pope, Pastor or Priest. Though much wiser than myself, they are not always correct in their decisions and that is why I must question what they say when it doesn’t reflect what I believe to be true. I don’t think God expects anything less from his children. We are all responsible for our own salvation.

    I reserve judgment about JS and the BOM. I am willing to say that JS was a prophet just like GBH is a prophet. I’m also willing to accept that the BOM has many great teachings. I want to believe JS was a prophet and the BOM is a literal history of Native Americans, but I can no longer in good conscience say, “I know” or even “I believe”. You could say that I’m testing Alma’s hypothesis of the seed of faith. Planting the seed and desiring that it grow to the “I know” testimony I once had.

  14. Joseph could have written the BOM on toilet paper,
    and mispelled ever word, but having spent considerable time with the descendents of Lehi, every page in it rings true. The Bible speaks of it
    (The Book of Mormon) from the beginning in Genesis through Revelations. Tells us how it would be recorded, when it would be restored, how it would be revealed to its (the BOM) rightfull heirs, what it’s purpose would be. The mtDNA is easily understood, there were millions of people in the Americas before Lehi and his boys arrived on the western shores of Guatemala/Mexico, yes from the Pacific. Hundreds of migrations had occurred before Lehi. Chinese, Japanese, Islanders, Western Europeans, from the tin islands, and what they were named at that time, many differenct discriptions, oh also Africa and Egypt, in some cases 1000’s of years before Lehi. Lehi’s group, children, did what all of the
    previous migrations did, they intermarried with the
    the females of those previous migrants. mtDNA
    is traced from mother to daughter, mother. to their children. You have your mother’s mtDNA. Sure the mtDNA reflects almost all of the above including those from the mid east, Israel. Don’t take my word for it, you have the right approach, the truths of the Book of Mormon are revealed on a personal basis. You have that desire, you seek that spirituality for yourself. All of the above adds credibility, but it has to be confirmed spiritually for oneself.

    You noticed that I said, I rarely disagreed with the boys (GAs) on spiritual matters, but sometimes they make some decisions that remind me of Jonah. 🙂 Jonah got carried away with his own self righteousness and “authority”.


  15. I am familiar with the limited geography theory and the implications it has on interpretation of the mitochondrial DNA evidence. While I’m sure you have good reason to pinpoint the location of Lehi’s landing and other details, you will forgive me for not sharing your views. (I know you will. You don’t seem to be the type of person that needs everyone to agree with him).

    What do you do with View of the Hebrews? Surely, you are familiar with the fact that it was published several years before J.S. “translated” the BOM and that B.H. Roberts was concerned about the numerous parallels between the two books. Also, the misspellings that happen to match the same grammatical errors in a KJV Bible of the time of JS (see Grant Palmer’s book)? These things are equally troubling to the mtDNA evidence when I consider if it is an actual history. If you have any insight into these problems please share it also.

    So what about the priesthood questions I asked you in my last post? If you don’t feel comfortable elaborating, I understand.

  16. Jay, I just read this right now.

    JST Genesis 7:10

    What is the “blackness” here?

  17. Genesis 7:10 And there was a blackness came upon all the children of Cainan, that they were despised among all people. – JST

    In this instance I interpret blackness as meaning a darkness of the mind and spirit came upon them. God is represented by light and conversely distance from God is represented by darkness.

  18. Disclaimer: very little knowledge is of original thought in the dispensation of the fullness of times and we humbly beg your indulgence for the use of any thoughts, statements or unrevealed revelations that someone may have had, that resembles the words that follow: (But no one has a monopoly on truth) “sots”

    Greetings !

    Some Latter-day Saints have suggested that Ham’s wife Egyptus was a descendant of Cain, but neither the book of Abraham nor any other scriptural passage makes such a claim. It was a common belief among 19th-century American Protestants and was used to justify slavery and, later, the mistreatment of African-Americans. Early Latter-day Saints brought the idea with them when they converted to the restored Church and mistakenly pointed to the book of Abraham for evidence for the belief.

  19. Jay wrote: “So what about the priesthood questions I asked you in my last post? If you don’t feel comfortable elaborating, I understand.”

    I do hesitate in offering what little I know or research I have gleaned, however after discussing this with “sots” my eternal friend and praying about it I will offer this. But please, readers of this blog, these are sacred things only by attending the temple and engaging your “spiritual listening” will you understand. These things should be shared with only those “honest in heart”.


    As man is God once was, as God is man may become. What a wondrous thought, what a glorious opportunity for mankind—to become as God is! To reign supremely over worlds without end! Our Father in Heaven has given His children a promise that those who receive the Fullness of His Gospel and endure to the end, shall receive exaltation in His presence. They shall enter the Celestial Kingdom as Gods and Goddesses, sons and daughters of God in His Celestial Family. A kingdom in which our Heavenly Father eternally rules, and ruling by His side is our Heavenly Mother. It is a patriarchal society comprised of immortal beings, Kings and Priests, Queens and Priestesses who have earned the right to preside over their own eternal posterity, to create worlds without number, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
    The Bible is a history of a special family here on Earth. A royal lineage chosen by God upon whom He bestowed his choicest blessings. The Prophet Joseph Smith revealed that this ancient people possessed the fullness of the gospel and a fullness of the priesthood and its ordinances.
    From the days of Adam to Moses, it was a patriarchal era, a time in which the patriarchs reigned. It began with Adam, who received certain authority from God. This authority or the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood enabled Adam to administer the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, giving laws and administering endless lives to his sons and daughters. Being “the Firstborn”c he established a patriarchal birthright line, the presiding office of which was referred to as “The right of the Firstborn.” In Adam’s absence or death, his patriarchal heir who held this Right, stood in Adam’s place as presiding Patriarch to the world. The “Right of the Firstborn” was handed down from father to son and could only be held by one man on the earth at a time. This was the Patriarchal Order or as it came to be known “The Holy Order of God.”
    It was in this order that a man and woman received the ordinances of the Priesthood which prepared them for Godhood and which would ultimately bring them into the presence of God. The integral part of this Priesthood was the sealing power—it had the power to seal on earth that which would remained sealed in heaven. It was through this sealing power that eternal marriages and eternal families were created.
    In 1820 the unlearned farm boy by the name of Joseph Smith was chosen by the Lord to restore His Gospel. Joseph received first the Aaronic priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist. Later he received the apostolic authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of Peter, James and John.

    Finally he received the higher order of the Patriarchal Priesthood and the fullness thereof from under the hands of Moses, Elias and Elijah in the Kirtland Temple. Thus on the 3rd of April, 1836, Joseph Smith received the same blessings which were given to Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. He was given the sealing keys of Elijah which gave him the authority to seal on earth that which would remain sealed in Heaven. It was this higher order of the Patriarchal Priesthood (though not its fullness) which the Prophet referred to on August 27, 1843, when he said that: “[the] second Priesthood [is] Abraham’s Patriarchal power which is the greatest [Priesthood] yet experienced in this Church.”
    It was on May 4th, 1842, that the Holy Order met for the first time in this dispensation. It was at this meeting that the Prophet first administered the Endowment—the ordinances of the Holy Order and communicated keys pertaining to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph referred to it as the ancient order of things because it was the same order which the ancient patriarchs had—the Patriarchal Order.
    The Church as a whole was kept entirely in the dark as to its proceedings, for its secrets could only be revealed through the oaths and covenants of the Temple which were administered to relatively few people during the Prophet’s lifetime.
    It was the Prophet’s doctrine that the women who were brought into the Holy Order received the Priesthood along with the men. They received their washings and anointings at the hands of other sisters who had already been endowed and who had been anointed and ordained to the Keys of the Priesthood. Sister Eliza R. Snow, made these remarks:
    The sisters were also apostolic in a priestly sense. They partook of the priesthood equally with the men. They too “held the keys of the administration of angels.” . . . Woman also soon became high priestess and prophetess. She was this officially. . . . The genius of a patriarchal priesthood naturally made her the apostolic help-meet for man. If you saw her not in the pulpit teaching the congregation, yet was she to be found in the temple, administering for the living and the dead! Even in the holy of holies she was met. As a high priestess she blessed with the laying on of hands! As a prophetess she oracled in holy places!

    She held the keys of the administration of angels and of the “sealings” pertaining to “the heavens and the earth”
    President Brigham Young referred to the fact that women did indeed hold the Priesthood, when in a discourse given on June 28th, 1874, he told the Saints:
    Now, brethren, the man that honors his priesthood, the woman that honors her priesthood, will receive an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of God. (JD 17:11)
    On March 15th, 1846, Orson Hyde read and distributed to the Saints in the Nauvoo Temple a revelation which he had received that morning:
    I have made my Church as upon a hill. The Priest-hood holds the power and all have been ordained or ought to be. It is necessary that it should rest upon all, not upon men only but upon women also that ye may be all one. (Bullock Minutes, 15 March 1846, BYU Studies Vol. 31, No. 1 p. 61)
    It should also be stated that a man has but little power in the priesthood without a woman. Section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants states:
    In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood. And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.
    Most of this has been taken from the works of William S Harwell with some comments offered by “sots”
    I would suppose that the reason this is not discussed at lengths in open forums of the church is because of its sacred nature and this “order” administers to both the living and our departed ancestors in our Sacred Temples. Some of these thoughts are also found in the “Shepherd’s Parchments”. II Tim 4:13 of which excerpts of some, the Franciscan Monks who came to the Americas, brought with them from Spain right after 1519 when Cortez arrived in Tenochtitlan.(Mexico City) At this time they found rooms full of amatl records that had been kept by the Aztec Priests, paper made from the yellow fig tree covered with a soft material for engraving, which gave them the appearance of gold.

    Amazing eh?

    Take my word for it: Joseph Smith was and still is a Prophet of God, and so is Gordon B. Hinckley.

    P.S. The Book of Mormon is true bro. Study it. View of the Hebrews, eh, eh, good try but the Franciscan Priests thought the Aztecs were part of the lost tribes of Israel in the 1500s. Ethan Smith’s VH was a day late and a pound (dollar) short. Book of Mormon was an original, translated by Joseph with the help of others, Oliver, Emma..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: