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?

I do sustain the leaders, but like any of the other 14 million members, I have moral agency and the right to decide what's right for myself. You can say it's racism all you wish, but that won't make it so. You seem to be taking it rather personally, as a matter of fact. You are certainly free to ask for a blessing or ordinance from any priesthood holder you choose, that's your moral agency. I don't see any attitude here, I just see adherence to scriptural teachings. When I say I uphold my leaders, I mean I won't ever say that a black man's priesthood is invalid or less valid, because per the 1978 revelation, it isn't. I'll also say here that I really haven't had much experience with black members, as the wards I've been in really haven't had them to begin with. The exception is a ward located within a city, a brief assignment until I found a suburban dwelling, having nothing to do with the racial composition of the city ward, but when one has a choice between living in the city and the suburbs I should think they'd want to live in the latter. Anyway, sustaining the leaders and the 1978 revelation doesn't preclude me from being comfortable with who lays hands upon my head, just like you have that choice.

I don't believe it to be a matter of enlightenment, or lack thereof, but merely adhering to scriptural teachings. In 2 Nephi 5:21, we read some pretty heavy stuff. My personal interpretation of it-- and this is just that, a personal interpretation-- is that this is where the General Authorities who once taught against interracial marriage got their information, for lack of a better term. I remember being raised with the knowledge that interracial marriage is not so much wrong as it is against the counsel of the Church, and that has more to do with cultural compatibility than any perceived racism. Because of those teachings, I didn't fall into the fad that was prevalent when I was in school, that being interracial relationships, i.e. black male/white female, or vice versa, to a lesser degree. I am grateful for that upbringing and I will not lie about or hide that gratitude. With that said, just because one may not marry into another race does not mean he is racist. I of course sustain the 1978 revelation and I also sustain Gordon B. Hinckley when he said that racism has no place in the Church. However, history is history and facts are facts. Alma 3:6-7 is quite clear that the dark skin came about because of rebellion. One could argue, perhaps successfully, that this is why (and I say this with scriptural intent) statistically speaking, blacks are responsible for more crimes than any other race. Could that rebellion be genetic? Maybe, on some small scriptural degree, it really isn't their fault, as many of them cry when they're arrested or in jail. However, they must of course be held accountable for their actions. Still, it's my personal belief that Alma 3:6-7 explains this dynamic. Conversely, Alma 23:18 showed that people could repent and have the curse lifted. Now, as we read in Moses 7:22, Cain's descendants were black, as were the Lamanites. Of course, today's descendants had absolutely nothing to do with all this, and of course there are upstanding and good black people. They can now hold the priesthood and go forward in all manners in the Church. However, history cannot be forgotten, nor should it. I haven't yet been in a position of getting an ordination or blessing from a black priesthood holder, but because of scriptural teaching-- not racism-- I'd have to say I may not be okay with that. Now, to my knowledge-- and I'm not too proud to admit that maybe I missed something-- there has been no revelation or scriptural revision that lifts the curse put upon those with dark skin, i.e. black people.

I find shows like this to be appalling, and it's beyond appalling to learn that Wilson is (allegedly) LDS. To mock something as sacred as spirits and by extension the spirit world is insulting, and shows such as this cannot be dismissed as entertainment. It goes without saying that these shows are fake. Although I am in no position to say with certainty what Heavenly Father would or would not allow, it's my personal belief he would not allow the unveiling of spirits and the spirit world for cheap commercial entertainment value. Gospel Principles Chapter 41: The Postmortal Spirit World We are taught that the spirit world is not far from us. Ezra Taft Benson said as much: "Sometimes the veil between this life and the life beyond becomes very thin. Our loved ones who have passed on are not far from us." Brigham Young instructed that the spirit world is here on earth. Thus, it is possible to explain the presence of "ghosts" in the sense that these nonsense shows try to sell as reality, but again, I find it implausible that Heavenly Father would allow these sacred things to be unveiled by trash TV. Thus, they are fiction. The theories of these "ghost hunters" and "paranormal societies" are beyond silly. They would have you believe in EVP and they would have you believe they can record sounds from so-called "ghosts" taking part in events of the past (a local paranormal society in New Jersey posted such an alleged sound file, purported to be from the Civil War, I believe, on their website). My point is this: they make their living providing an entertainment product. Cheap, unrighteous entertainment, but entertainment nonetheless. I do not believe that it is possible for anything they "reveal" to be true. With all that said, we all have our moral agency as to which shows to watch. If you can watch a show like this, even when imagining a General Authority sitting next to you, then rock on.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Tom Brokaw to remember 9/11: Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Tom Brokaw to Remember 9/11 - LDS Newsroom

This was a sad story to read: Vanessa Bentley, of Tucson, dead at 22. Sister missionary dies in N.Y. car accident | Deseret News

So, you want a link do you? Would the Deseret News do? Laugh now: LDS Church News - First Presidency statement cites scriptural mandate for Church committee

I'm sorry you're not taking this subject matter more seriously.

Tell you what..you post yours, I'll post mine.

Why, do you have something to hide?

Then woe be unto thee. I make sure not to write anything critical of leaders or their decisions. My standing in the Church is not going to be thrown away in the name of a blog post, but you rock on if that's what you wish to do.