The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Blacks and the Priesthood)

[idea]

not being allowed is not being with people but being subjected to them.

have you considered that your personal moral sense is more sensible than that of mt 19:30? if in fact it's not about being in front of people but being with them?

the only way to be with anyone, is to be subject to them... walk a mile in another's shoes to know them means you subject yourself to their ideologies... without humility, and giving up your will (not my will but thine be done) without changing yourself, you will never really see into the life of another - "my will, my way" - and you will be eternally trapped within your own little box... you have to give up your box, climb out of it, to see others, and be "with" others...

(just so when you do this, be sure the "box" you want to see into is a good one!)

a heart outside of the body isn't good for anything.... when the heart allows itself to be controlled by the mind, when it allows itself to be taken over and used by the body - that is when the heart gains it's worth, and it's identity. Subject to ourself we are worthless... Our worth is measured through what we belong to, and what we subject ourselves too...

 

[Evandr]

This sounds great until you consider polygamy. Joseph Smith had no problems starting polygamy and you can see what the final result of that decision. In my opinion, your comment is not a valid argument.

There is a large and stark difference between polygamy and racism. Joseph Smith did not start polygamy it was instituted by commandment. Polygamy did not threaten the foundations of the church the way racism would have; incidentally, the guidelines regarding polygamy and the priesthood (with regard to the apparent racism) are not unchanging principles of the everlasting Gospel, they are guidelines meant to ensure the success of the organization, the Lord has often set up the organizational guidelines of His church to prevent the excessive ire of the masses outside the organization.

Polygamy was instituted of God to provide priesthood into the homes of the sisters who had none, again it was a special directive given by the Lord to help get the whole show off the ground. When the laws of the land prohibited polygamy the Lord authorized the Church to conform to those laws which they promptly did. The fact that some became disgruntled and subsequently disenfranchised themselves from the Church does not alter the validity and truthfulness of the church, it simply meant that a new sect was formed by man not having the power and authority possessed by the original organization because the disenfranchising between the church and this (these) new organization(s) was mutual.

I don't believe God would limit the blessings of eternal marriage/endowment to white men simply because the world would be upset if blacks were allowed the priesthood. If that were the case why did God let Brigham Young say such hurtful things about the black race. Couldn't God have said, "Yeah, well, let's wait until the rest of the world is ready. There's nothing wrong with black people, btw."?

The rest of the world would never be ready until the Gospel was restored. Racism is a particularly nasty disease of the mind that was not peculiar to those outside the LDS faith; Many of the early saints, including the leaders held social ideals and practices that had to be changed over time line upon line and precept upon precept, the founding fathers were slave owners.

Rooting out racism without racism destroying the whole effort before it could get off of the ground took careful and measured steps that, unfortunately, are still in process today although huge strides have been accomplished. If the world became sufficiently upset with the Church nobody would enjoy these blessings because the necessary temples would never have been built - where is the wisdom in that?

As for your comment about some being denied eternal blessings I will say it again, the work of eternity did not start in mortality and does not end at death. A person is not judged by that which they were not given to be judged by. Black men and women who suffered due to the "apparent" prejudice of the Church will not be denied the opportunity to receive any and all the blessings that each and every son or daughter of God is entitled to and that included being sealed in the temple even if that sealing has to be done vicariously. That is the primary purpose of the Temples.

 

[waitasec]

the only way to be with anyone, is to be subject to them... walk a mile in another's shoes to know them means you subject yourself to their ideologies...

thats being subjected to the other persons circumstance. being subjected to another person is being controlled by them.

without humility, and giving up your will (not my will but thine be done) without changing yourself, you will never really see into the life of another -

you mean gods?

"my will, my way" - and you will be eternally trapped within your own little box... you have to give up your box, climb out of it, to see others, and be "with" others...

and you are trapped by saying what you said, which is that it's not about being in front but being with people...jesus obviously thinks it's better to be in front. the last shall be 1st.

 

[idea]

thats being subjected to the other persons circumstance. being subjected to another person is being controlled by them.

it is not being "controlled" by them if you go willingly... when you go willingly without being asked, you are in control of yourself.

you mean gods?

God is the best person to be united under.

and you are trapped by saying what you said, which is that it's not about being in front but being with people...jesus obviously thinks it's better to be in front. the last shall be 1st.

Jesus was the author of the phrase "not my will, but thine be done"...

 

[waitasec]

it is not being "controlled" by them if you go willingly... when you go willingly without being asked, you are in control of yourself.

you said,
you were not allowed in the priesthood
i said,
you were subjected because you are not allowed
explain to me how this is an example of your willingness to not be in the priesthood

 

[Evandr]

not being allowed is not being with people but being subjected to them.

have you considered that your personal moral sense is more sensible than that of mt 19:30? if in fact it's not about being in front of people but being with them?

The first principle of the Church is organization and thus it is with a household. To avoid confusion the conduit of the blessings of the priesthood comes by and through the male head of the house, however, that does not make him greater or lesser in the eyes of God than his spouse or anybody else much the same way a woman’s role as a partner with God and conduit through which his children are brought into the world does not make her greater or lesser than her husband. A priesthood holder is instructed that trying to exercise dominion over others by virtue of the priesthood will suffer an end of the blessings associated with the priesthood. A woman is bound to submit to her husband ONLY so long as the husband submits to the Lord. Such submission is not bondage but a hand-in-hand path to exaltation in the Celestial Kingdome of God. In that kingdom the power of the priesthood blesses the lives of the whole community equally; it is a place wherein perfection of knowledge by all therein totally eliminates the current need and concept of the hierarchal authority necessary to shield the family unit ,and thusly the church as a whole, from the buffetings of Satan via temptation and those who oppose the church.

 

[waitasec]

The first principle of the Church is organization and thus it is with a household. To avoid confusion the conduit of the blessings of the priesthood comes by and through the male head of the house, however, that does not make him greater or lesser in the eyes of God than his spouse or anybody else much the same way a woman’s role as a partner with God and conduit through which his children are brought into the world does not make her greater or lesser than her husband.

if someone is placed in a position based on what they are rather than who they are it's bigotry.

you are ignoring a persons potential based on their genitals...

not very impressive...in fact it's a really primitive way of thinking...

 

[Evandr]

you said,
you were not allowed in the priesthood
i said,
you were subjected because you are not allowed
explain to me how this is an example of your willingness to not be in the priesthood

I do not understand this fixation you have against being subject to an organization with hierarchal authority. If the will of God effectively filters down to permeate the whole family then the organizational arrangements of that family put them all in line with the blessings of God equally, each having an assigned task to best ensure the success of the family and therefore the community, the nation and the world. If it is not working it is not the fault of God or any shortcoming in the plan but the fault of the overly proud countenance and indignant attitude held by the vast majority of mankind. The plan is perfect but unfortunately the haughty stupidity of mankind is also nearly as perfect as Lucifer would have it be. If everyone in the world would realize that a person never stands as tall as they do when they are on their knees before God this world would have none of the social problems we face today.

 

[waitasec]

I do not understand this fixation you have against being subject to an organization with hierarchal authority.

i have no problem with that if it is understood that each person has strengths and weaknesses. the way the priesthood works no better than the prohibition of disabled people as priests in the temple in the OT.

it's a ridiculously obvious position of bigotry, because you're putting a blanket statement, that all women are to be subjected to men because of their genitals...

 

[idea]

you said,
you were not allowed in the priesthood
i said,
you were subjected because you are not allowed
explain to me how this is an example of your willingness to not be in the priesthood

I choose which church to belong to, I choose to subject myself to the priesthood - I choose this in order to be a part of something bigger than myself, and therefore to be something bigger than myself... the priesthood in turn is subject to God - again, to be a part of something bigger, and grander, than anything which could be gained through remaining an isolationist...
there is no shame in being a "servant" - I would rather be a help-meet ... the person who gives help, than being the person who needs help
I don't feel the need to control others - again, I would rather be "with" than "in front of"... I do see the need for leadership, and am happy that there are people willing and guided by God to fill that role, but honestly... for me... the glory of it all lies within the midst - within (not in the front).

There is much more to being female than physical attributes... we are created male and female due to the nature of our spirit - it is much more than just a skin deep thing...

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

yaddoe,

You can't ask a question about why God is racist and then simply ignore the proof people give to you. It's there. It's in the BoM and the BoA. In the BoM it states God gave them a BLACK skin as a curse. Don't get much clearer than that.

Name a black person who was denied the priesthood? Every single one of them except for one or two who slipped in at the start.

Wow, if every single one of them were denied the priesthood it should be easy for you to name one worthy black man who was denied the priesthood.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Waitasec, you sure seem to have a lot of questions about the LDS church. If it were not against the proselytizing rule, I would ask if have you ever considered talking with the Missionaries and getting baptized? but since it is against the proselytizing rule I'm not going to ask you that.

 

[waitasec]

it is much more than just a skin deep thing...

so why are people being judged by that very idea?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So what if he made them all have green skin? Would God still be considered racist?

rac·ism (rszm)
noun.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I believe the cause of disagreement here is that LDS defenders believe racism is defined as a bad thing. Some people think, I can't be racist; therefore, if I am not shocked and appalled by something, that thing must not be racist. Actually, racism has a neutral definition, and most people conclude that it is shocking and appalling. But in the minds of some people, God is good, so it logically follows that none of his actions in the Book of Mormon can be racist. By definition.

What these people are really expressing, when they say passages of the BOM are not racist, is the fact that for them, this racism is not appalling and it's not bad. Sure, God cursed evildoers with black skin to make them ugly and their descendants were excluded from the priesthood ..... but so what? I don't find that objectionable; therefore, it must not be racist or discriminatory.

 

[idea]

But in the minds of some people, God is good, so it logically follows that none of his actions in the Book of Mormon can be racist. By definition.

The Book of Mormon ends with all the white people being wiped off the face of the land by the darker skinned people... oppression of white people? sure sounds like it... I'm partially white, and I'm still in the church though

Different backgrounds from different regions of the world - nothing wrong with this - to say that "I am from the Smith family, and we grew up on a watermelon farm, so when you see us eating an entire watermellon in one setting, just know that we behave this way because this is our family trade and how we grew up" - this is not a "negative" thing....

The Book of Mormon talks about different families - the Lamanite family, and the Nephite family (and a few others but those are the main two) both family lines have things that are good, and things that are bad... both go through times of being in favor with God, and being in disfavor with God... one of the big points of the Book of Mormon is that it is about someone other than the Jews - yes God like the Jewish people - but God also likes and talks with EVERYONE not just one particular group of people - so the B.O.M. is "another" witness of God from "another" group of people - it is not racist at all... it is an inclusive book that no matter who you are, or where you are - in Israel or in America, Jewish or Egyptian, if you follow the commandments, you can have a relationship with God - that's the point of having a "second witness" and that is what the BoM is - a second witness, from another group of people, to show God talks with everyone.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The Book of Mormon ends with all the white people being wiped off the face of the land by the darker skinned people... oppression of white people? sure sounds like it... I'm partially white, and I'm still in the church though

Different backgrounds from different regions of the world - nothing wrong with this - to say that "I am from the Smith family, and we grew up on a watermelon farm, so when you see us eating an entire watermellon in one setting, just know that we behave this way because this is our family trade and how we grew up" - this is not a "negative" thing....

I'm not sure what you are saying .... let's do an exercise. Let's compare two statements and see if they can be reconciled with each other.

Statement #1: I believe that race DOES NOT account for differences in human character or ability, and that a particular race IS NOT superior to others. Also, I DO NOT treat people differently (discriminate), or assume things about people (hold prejudices), based on race.​

It should be obvious from the definition of "racism" that Statement #1 is exactly the opposite of racism. If something is NOT racist, it should not contradict Statement #1. Now consider the following passages from the Book of Mormon (credit to waitasec):

Statement #2, passages from the Book of Mormon: 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. (2 Nephi 5:21) ...

And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction. And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him. (Alma 3:7-10) ...

And they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them. (Alma 23:18) ...

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites. And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. (3 Nephi 2:15-16)​

Clearly, Statement #2 conflicts with Statement #1. Therefore, these passages from the Book of Mormon are racist.

 

[idea]

I'm not sure what you are saying .... let's do an exercise. Let's compare two statements and see if they can be reconciled with each other.


It should be obvious from the definition of "racism" that Statement #1 is exactly the opposite of racism. If something is NOT racist, it should not contradict Statement #1. Now consider the following passages from the Book of Mormon (credit to waitasec):

Clearly, Statement #2 conflicts with Statement #1. Therefore, these passages from the Book of Mormon are racist.

Different families, who are acting differently. - read it in context - it is about how they were acting, and what they were doing.

2 Nephi 5

Always, within the Book of Mormon, everyone is judged based on their actions. at the root of all of it, is how people are behaving.

the Bible too...
Genesis 4:15 And the LORD set a mark upon Cain,

The issue was not the mark - it was the actions of Cain.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Different families, who are acting differently. - read it in context - it is about how they were acting, and what they were doing.

But that is what racists say. It's not really about skin color .... black skin just happens to be an inseparable marker of how these people behave. Not even the Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan would argue that skin pigment in and of itself is somehow "bad", there's always some pseudo-logic linking skin color to character flaws or the misdeeds of ancestors.

Always, within the Book of Mormon, everyone is judged based on their actions.

Right .... and if their actions are good, their skin color turns white and delightsome, and their daughters become exceedingly fair. If their actions are bad, their skin turns black -- an unappealing skin color, and a curse on their descendants. You have to be Mormon to not see the racism here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, if every single one of them were denied the priesthood it should be easy for you to name one worthy black man who was denied the priesthood.

With a racist policy like that, why would you expect "worthy black men" to be lining up to ask to join the LDS priesthood?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

With a racist policy like that, why would you expect "worthy black men" to be lining up to ask to join the LDS priesthood?

So are you claiming that there were no black men in the church when the church was suposively denying them the priesthood.