ldseastcoast

So again..hide the opinions for fear of what some anti may or may not do. That makes sense. I would hope that someone has more common sense than what you've credited investigators with. You've essentially called them uneducated, naive and unable to filter opinion from doctrine. Way to be!

And if they can't separate opinions from doctrine, then as I said, there are deeper problems afoot, namely reading comprehension. Let's never have an opinion again, for fear it may turn off an investigator.

Yes, because of course everyone must act, talk, think and walk like Pam.

Easy solution then. Let's never have an opinion on anything again. Fair enough? As is my right, just like a black member could very well say they don't want me to serve them because I'm white. It cuts both ways.

And if people can't separate opinions from beliefs, then maybe there are deeper problems afoot. However, I do see your point. I've changed my sig, so even the most uninformed can realize that I'm expressing but my opinions on (gasp!) a message board!

That's a rather narrow view. Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs and compromise my values to allow someone those blessings? It's not as if I'd be the only person they could bless or ordain, you know. I even hear wards have multiple members! So I'm denying them nothing, especially since as I write this, it's a moot point, since there are no black members in my ward.

That's really paranoid of you, but I'll go you one better. I'll modify my signature. If someone's going to base their opinions of the Church on posts on a message board that isn't even run by the Church, then I'd say that's a problem. But hey..I'm nothing if not cooperative, so I'll change that ol' sig.

Well of course there isn't, because it wasn't until 1978 until that became an issue, with the revelation. As far as wariness, I can only point out 2 Nephi 5:21, in regards to not being enticing. While this clearly referred to intermarriage, I would also say it applies in other situations.

You obviously are reading only what you want. I said I have had little experience with the black Latter-day Saint. I've had far more encounters with the black man than I care to relate, and those encounters lead me to my position today. I'm sure there are more than a few black people who have had such experiences with the white man, and as such carry such feeling for us. Such is life. As for your contention thing, you're far off. We should not bring the spirit of contention. I disagree with you as much as you disagree with me, so why bring that spirit?

I kind of have to jump back in now. You seem to be justifying crime by "socioeconomic factors," as in being poor or having a bad childhood excuses crime. Is that your position? Maybe it's a matter of "the situation" excusing crime? And as for critics, I'll happily clarify, if I haven't already, that my opinions are my own. I made that very clear..that these are MY OWN interpretations. If a critic can't see that, then that's their ignorance in action. Again, we have the ability to think for ourselves (we had this debate on another thread), and this is a hot-button issue, I admit. I've made it abundantly clear that I sustain the leaders and in my previous post I made it clear I can't and won't discriminate in the course of my priesthood duties. That doesn't mean I have to go out and have Green Jell-O with shredded carrots and Sprite ® with the black man, now does it?

Again, this can be answered by the fact that it's my moral agency to feel this way, and I arrived at this conclusion not only through scriptural contemplation, but through real-life personal experiences with the black man. If I'm asked to kneel down in prayer to bless the sacrament next to a black man, I will do so. If I pass the sacrament and must serve a black member, I of course will do so. That's not what this is about, because black, Asian or whatever, I don't have the right to deny ordinances or blessings to anyone. It would be arrogance and unrighteous dominion for me to refuse to bless the sacrament with a black man or to refuse to serve the sacrament to a black person. This is about what pertains to me, as in who ordains or blesses me.

In the interest of not bringing the spirit of contention, more than it already has been, let us simply agree to disagree on this.

I never said that it was. You're putting words in my mouth. Again, this is about my personal beliefs and moral agency. Of course your priesthood is just as valid. That doesn't mean I have to ask you to ordain or bless me, just as you have agency as to who ordains or blesses you.

Yes, and the 1978 revelation said black men could hold the priesthood. There was nothing said, at least to the degree that I'm privy to (the same as any other member), of the lifting of the curse. That said, I sustain the 1978 revelation. It does not mean I lose my moral agency as to who I get ordinations or blessings from, just as it doesn't affect yours other than to broaden the horizons.

Precisely. Based on scriptural study, the "dark skin" refers to blacks. Surely you've studied this at some point in church?