Jason_J

No, I did not say nor imply that there are any excuses for crime. What I am saying, and what sociologists have repeatedly stated, is that there are various factors that come into play in regards to crime rate, and that it is quite clear that socioeconomic factors, as well as childhood experiences (I mean, what do I know, I only have a degree in psychology...) can explain said crime rate. We are products of our surroundings. I grew up in a medium sized suburb of NYC that is predominately black. Our crime rate is virtually nonexistent, the public high school I went to (2000 people) sends 97% of the graduates to college, etc. We are products of our environment. That is what I am talking about, not excusing crimes, but providing an alternative explanation to your "because they are black" argument you posited earlier. Of course, however they will then wonder how the Church of Jesus Christ allows these "interpretations" and whether they are consistent with Church teachings. That is the issue. Yes, we know, you won't discriminate in your priesthood duties, but you will when you decide who will ordain or bless you. "the black man". Oh dear.

And again, I'm not talking about your feelings or your moral agency. I am talking about the alleged scriptural basis for such a belief, in light of the priesthood being the same. The implication is that there is something...different about receiving ordinances from a black Saint. That is what I'm addressing, not your right to choose whom you receive ordinances from. Also, there is no "the black man". You mean your experiences with certain black men. Right, and I was not addressing any of that. Right, and the issue is whether there is a scriptural basis to be wary of asking a black member to bless or ordain you. My answer is that there isn't, and as Pam said, this would be a contradiction if there was a scriptural basis for such a belief.

If you do not want to discuss this further, that is fine. My point (and I believe it is the same view held by Pam, Selek, skippy, etc) is to show why certain views on this topic are not consistent with the scriptures and modern-day revelations, nor with logic (i.e. "dark skin"), common racist statements about black crime rate (which ignore history, socioeconomic factors, and other issues besides just being black) so that non-members and critics that are reading this thread don't get the wrong idea about what the Church of Jesus Christ actually teaches and believes, as well as what is acceptable as far as worthiness to hold and exercise the priesthood. As a former critic, I can guarantee that many would/will have a field day with this thread after reading some of the posts here.

No, I'm not (especially when I used the phrase "as if"). I am pointing out exactly what you have stated (as well as the implications of your said belief), that you would not feel comfortable receiving an ordination or blessing from a black priesthood holder, just because they are black, based on your interpretation of scriptures. The question then becomes why, and those are the implications of your belief. Of course, however the issue is whether there is a scriptural basis (as you posit) for being wary of receiving a priesthood ordination or blessing from a black Latter-day Saint as opposed to any other Latter-day Saint, just because they are black, despite the fact that we hold the same priesthood as everyone else, and can worthily exercise it.

See above. I think you should read the posts by Selek and skippy740 in this thread to understand the scriptures that you are studying. My point is also that this shows an inconsistency in your logic that "dark skin" came about because of rebellion, when the scriptures cited are being interpreted to refer to blacks and/or Native Americans.

The point she is making is that the priesthood that we black Latter-day Saints hold is the same priesthood that white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. males hold in the Church. When I baptize, it is just like any other priesthood holder baptizing. When I bless the Sacrament, it is just like any other priesthood holder blessing the Sacrament. So I see no reason to be wary of being ordained or receiving a blessing from a black priesthood holder, just because they are black, if this is all true. There is no scriptural basis for that, as if the priesthood I hold is somehow lesser than yours.

And what about all the other dark skinned peoples besides those of African descent, many of whom have skin as dark or darker than many Africans? Did their dark skin also come about because of rebellion? And as far as crime rate, I won't go into that in any detail, because that ignores history (i.e., blacks are responsible for more crimes throughout human existence? Just in the USA? Etc.), as well as various other socioeconomic factors. You may not be okay with what? Getting an ordination or blessing from a black priesthood holder? Again, by "those with dark skin", you're only referring to a subset of dark skinned people right? Or does this include South Asians and others not of African descent with dark skin?

This is of course nonsense, and as already demonstrated by Selek, is your own opinion, not based on LDS doctrine nor scripture. But I guess you'd have me believe that I was a rotten scumbag at some point in my history of existence... I'm glad the Church of Jesus Christ does not, and has never supported your view. Now is it all people with dark skin (i.e. Native Americans, South Asians, Middle Easterners, etc), or just Africans? If just Africans, then why are the others "cursed with dark skin", if dark skin is a curse? This is where your logical fails (more). Um, reread your post and tell me that it wouldn't be offensive to people. I mean, surprise, there are actually black Latter-day Saints that post here , let alone all the others that are disturbed by your non-doctrinal/un-scriptural opinions.

Well I guess the Book of Mormon and the Bible are out according to this logic!

There are many peoples with dark skin in the world besides those of us of African descent, many just as dark and darker! Are they also descendents of Cain, kayne? Why didn't they fall under the priesthood restriction if dark skin is the mark of the curse?

I think that Protestants and Latter-day Saints would disagree that we believe that Christ left His Church, but I understand that that is how you must see this. Latter-day Saints agree that the Way is Jesus Christ and it is to Him that we turn, and that we return to Him, wounded, every time we confess our sins. He is the only Way. Latter-day Saints agree.

No problem! I agree with this generally, and I agree that the Catholic view of the situation is more nuanced, viewing the validly baptized Protestants as being in "imperfect" communion with the One Church. Also, while Catholicism may view all of traditional Christianity as One Church, it only regards certain parts of Christianity as having valid sacraments, orders, apostolic succession, etc. (such as the Eastern Orthodox and a few others). I think the difference, as to what the OP may have been referring to, is that a Catholic would not (or should not) go "church hopping" from a Catholic church to an Episcopalian church, for example (and should not receive sacraments in that church), while some Protestants are okay with doing things like that. I guess that's what I was thinking when I read the OP. And definitely, I believe that that is what the prophet Joseph Smith was doing when he was praying about which church to join. :)

This isn't what she was talking about though. She was asking about why it seems that some traditional Christians (certain Protestants in this case) seem to be able to just go to any church of any denomination. At least, that's the only interpretation of "It seems like my christian friends all can swap between each church however not the lds." that makes sense.

That's awesome! My parents are from Guyana!

Actually, as I mentioned, the LDS view is consistent with ancient (i.e. pre-19th century) Judeo-Christian views.

It was actually the October 2010 General Conference where two speakers covered the "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet", which was a talk given by President Benson in 1980: Obedience to the Prophets Our Very Survival

I think you mean omniscience not omnipresence. You mean from a traditional Christian view. From the Latter-day Saint Christian view, the meaning of the verse is clear, and is consistent with ancient Judeo-Christian thought, as well as other Biblical statements.

I am also a recent convert to the Church of Jesus Christ from the Catholic Church. Besides also recommending "Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest", I also found the following books helpful, coming from a Catholic background: 1) The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration by Tad Callister 2) All Things Restored: Confirming the Authenticity of LDS Beliefs by Matthew Brown 3) Where Have All the Prophets Gone: Revelation and Rebellion in the Old Testament and the Christian World by Scott Petersen For me, the most important thing was coming to an understanding of the apostasy and the restoration. These books cover those topics in detail, showing the Biblical and historical bases for the Great Apostasy, the changing of various beliefs and ordinances/sacraments, and the true restoration of various beliefs and ordinances, showing the historical evidences for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being an authentic restoration of ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs and rites. This, along with prayer to God, confirmed to me that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is the "one true church", with apostles, prophets, revelation, gifts of the Spirit, sacred ordinances, temples, etc. just like the ancient Church. So welcome to the forums, and feel free to ask any questions!

I completely understand. At first, it took me a long time to get through the beginning of the Book of Mormon. Remember to include prayer in your reading, and I second the advice that others have given as far as listening to audio when you're on the go. Also feel free to skip around in the Book of Mormon. You don't have to read it cover to cover at first.

Hi Andy, that's awesome that you're trying to read the Book of Mormon. I was raised in the Catholic Church and was pretty active in the Church (catechist, lector, extraordinary Eucharistic Minister) for most of my life, until I converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints earlier this year (I too had a fascination with the CoJCoLDS while I was Catholic). Welcome! -Jason

Well one example I can think of is regarding church organization. For example, having apostles and prophets can be seen as a restoration of ancient offices/functions found in the primitive Church that were lost. In contrast, having different quorums of the Seventy, etc. are examples of continuing revelation to a growing worldwide Church.

I agree with what others have said. I attend a ward in NYC, and we have baptismal clothes (i.e. the white jumper) in various sizes (this is the same jumper that we wear in the temple to do baptisms for the dead). If you ask the missionaries, they should be able to arrange that for you (in my case, I didn't even have to ask the missionaries. They just had me try on two sizes while they showed me the baptismal font). Also, you can always ask people from the ward to come too if you'd like. I had the missionaries send out an email to my ward, and a lot of people showed up (everyone loves to see baptisms). We also had a little reception after. And yes, definitely bring a towel. I didn't, so when I put my clothes back on, they definitely had wet spots all over .

Yes, it has been taught that, by participating in the Divine life, we can live the life that God lives, through the atonement of Jesus Christ. It has been taught that this includes the possibility of creating worlds. God will still be our God, and always will be, and Christ will always be our Savior. I find this statement from the 4th century AD, from the Jewish Talmud, quite interesting, showing that this belief that we may have the ability to create worlds given to us by God didn't just originate in the mind of Joseph Smith in the 1800s: " The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. . . . And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come. . . . To all the pious the Holy One, blessed be He, will give a sign and a part in the goodly reward, and everlasting renown, glory and greatness and praise, a crown encompassed in holiness, and royalty, equal to those of all the pious in the World to Come. The sign will be the cup of life which the Holy One, blessed be He, will give to the Messiah and to the pious in the Future to Come. Midrash Alpha beta diRabbi Akiba BhM 3:32" Very fascinating.

Well I think that most traditional Christians would agree with that, as it seems to really only be certain types of evangelical Christians that believe that those that don't formally accept Jesus in this life are destined to Hell. The Catholic position accepts something called "baptism for desire", which allows for instances where a person can be saved if they would have accepted the Gospel in this life if they had heard it. Perhaps Lutherans have something similar. What do you make of 1 Corinthians 15:29 ("Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?")? Also, do you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?

I agree with Volgadon. It seems as if it's better to just not spread the Gospel if people that never hear it get a free pass to Heaven. I mean, why go through the whole "enduring to the end", repentance, etc, if you can just not know about the Savior, and go to Heaven? Will these people that get an automatic pass have to demonstrate faith in Jesus Christ and accept "the Truth" (i.e. a Hindu that gets an automatic pass will have to reject certain false beliefs, right?), or will they just continue to not believe in that Truth? I find that the beliefs of the restored Gospel make the most sense in this regard, and are consistent with Biblical revelation.