To all worthy male members...

[Jim108]

I do not understand why people come to a website that is open to everyone but is specific to one philosophy and seeks to ridicule and demean them - EVEN THOUGH you say you do it "in love"?

Jim108, you are on my ignore list as you seem to violate the spirit of what this forum should be about.

Skippy, I am not against LDS. I am talking here about racial discrimination. It can never be tollerated. Most religions have at one time been in this catagory. So, my point is not against the LDS faith in specific. Do you not get that. It is about the discrimination of a person by how light is reflected off their skin. Not one of you have stepped up to the plate and said this is wrong. I have a hard time understanding that. Skippy, please understand I in no way am being disrespectful to your religion. It is your defense for this ugly discrimination that is in debate here. Jim

[Vort]

That is because Jim is a troll, can we just ban this moron already?

In my opinion -- and this is only my opinion, of course -- I think Jim is sincere.

Someone posted a link to the Myers-Briggs personality test. Taking it, I found that, like 1% of the population but about 30% of LDS.net, I'm an INTJ. I think the "T" refers to "Thinking", as opposed to "Feeling", which means that I tend to trust my rational faculties more than how I "feel" about something. Many here, perhaps most, share this trait with me.

My guess is that Jim is >90% a "Feeler" rather than a "Thinker". He trusts his gut feelings so much that he gives them preference to rational external evidence, and in this case, his gut tells him that racial discrimination is evil and no good person can possibly support it.

If I am right, then no amount of argumentation will budge Jim from his position. You can talk until you're blue in the face, and it won't make a bit of difference how well you prove your case. Jim's mind is already made up: Racial discrimination is evil (no matter what the historical setting), so therefore God can't discriminate on the basis of race (no matter how many historical examples you bring up), so therefore the LDS Church was wrong to withhold the Priesthood from men of African descent (no matter what it might teach on the topic).

I think it's telling that, while Jim is happy to offer his opinion (as is appropriate on a discussion list), he rarely or never actually engages in point-by-point conversation or answers specific questions or challenges to his viewpoint. This suggests to me that he is not interested in examining his arguments with external evidence; he feels he's right, and that's enough for him.

[richlittell]

You are holding up racial discrimination and defending it.

Not at all, we are defending Christ's right to run the administration of his church how he sees fit, and the priesthood is the office of administration, not salvation. Salvation has always been opened to ALL.

Jesus discriminated (by your definition, not mine, as I think he has a design and purpose for all things that are indeed centered around love).

Take a look at the bible, Matthew Ch. 15:

21 ¶ Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

It is obvious that Christ, for HIS reasons, discriminated against this Gentile woman. He practically called her a dog. But the point remains that the woman's faith still gained her everything --access to the gospel and it's healing powers-- through faith. The crumbs might be considered "salvation" or "the gospel," which is open to all. And every aspect of the gospel, prayer as well as faith, and blessings of many kinds based on faith, are and have always been available to ALL people every where, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, or gender.

The priesthood is an administrative order that keeps Christ's church from descending into chaos. God has ALWAYS been particular about who holds the priesthood. It was at one time limited only to Abraham himself and then only certain, not all, of his lineage.

.. you are saying that before the revelation a white LDS member was better than a black member simply because of the color of his skin. This does not stand....ever. Jim

Nobody ever said that. Throughout the history of the church, their have been men who held the priesthood who later turned out to be rather wicked people--so certainly, the priesthood in and of itself is not a measure of who is "better." Judas being the prime example.

I do understand how you would view this as an outsider; but it's not so egregious as you may think if it is weighed against all the other wonderful parts of the gospel (I'm a convert and I've already weighed these things out--20+ years ago). It's an administrative thing more than anything. And now, it is open to ALL worthy adult male members. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Faded]

Are you guys defending racial discrimination. I am sorry, but this is not a LDS specific subject. All, and I say all religions who practice or have practiced racial discrimination are in the wrong. You can not defend it ever! Your religion is no different than most religions. Most religions have dirty laundry. Are any of you willing to stand up and be counted as saying this practice was wrong. Well.....anyone......anyone. OK, man is wretched, man creates religion, religion is wretched. Believe in Jesus. You will never go wrong when you believe in Him. Jim

Jim, I think I understand where you're coming from on this. I don't think you're understanding where we're coming from though.

We do not have the luxury of pulling a total 180 degree turn in our practices and teachings and then saying, "Oops! Sorry! We were dead wrong about that!" The ironic thing is that the theoretical "Body of Christ" which includes all Christian relgions in the world is exempted from any accountability. Afterall, the "Body of Christ" has virtually zero official teachings beyond believing in God and Jesus Christ. That leaves a TON of wiggle room for any teaching under the Sun. The hypothetical "Body of Christ" doesn't have to meet ANY standards of correctness. So there is virtually no explanation required and ZERO accountability for all the racist nonsense perpetuated by every other Christian religion.

If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what we claim it is, then we do not have the same luxury. We cannot just reverse position and say, "Sorry guys we were wrong about that one." If this Church is what it claims to be, then the doctrines, practies, teachings and policies are the revealed will of God Himself. That would include excluding blacks from the Priesthood. That does not make all Latter Day Saints racists. No member of this Church that is worthy of being called a Saint is a racist. As far as I know, all of us are in the same boat: We don't know why blacks couldn't have the Priesthood and we are relieved that the practice ended. Throughout it all, the LDS Church and true Saints were big advocates of the Civil Rights movement. The LDS Church and true Saints were big advocates of the emmancipation of the slaves. True Saints were waiting with anticipation for this restriction of the Priesthood to be lifted. All of them are happy that it's over. No Saint who is worthy of the name is upset that blacks can now hold the Priesthood. But to say that the practice was wrong would equate to stating that either God Himself was wrong, or our Prophets were not inspired of God. That means we don't have any room to be fickle on this matter or any other matter involving revelation.

I am quite curious though. How is it that the "Body of Christ" gets a free pass on all wrongdoing? How then is it the True Body of Christ? This seems contrary to me. Either the Body of Christ is being led by Jesus Christ or it is not. I don't understand how the general and unspecific Body of Christian Religions does not have to be right about pretty much anything, and that drastic changes in teachings is perfectly acceptable. And yet the denominations within that Body hold the LDS Church (which they claim is not Christian) to very high and nit-picky standards. Why does that make sense? Why are Mormons required to have higher standards, both historically and currently, than every other denomination?

[Islander]

In my opinion -- and this is only my opinion, of course -- I think Jim is sincere.

Someone posted a link to the Myers-Briggs personality test. Taking it, I found that, like 1% of the population but about 30% of LDS.net, I'm an INTJ. I think the "T" refers to "Thinking", as opposed to "Feeling", which means that I tend to trust my rational faculties more than how I "feel" about something. Many here, perhaps most, share this trait with me.

My guess is that Jim is >90% a "Feeler" rather than a "Thinker". He trusts his gut feelings so much that he gives them preference to rational external evidence, and in this case, his gut tells him that racial discrimination is evil and no good person can possibly support it.

If I am right, then no amount of argumentation will budge Jim from his position. You can talk until you're blue in the face, and it won't make a bit of difference how well you prove your case. Jim's mind is already made up:

I think it's telling that, while Jim is happy to offer his opinion (as is appropriate on a discussion list), he rarely or never actually engages in point-by-point conversation or answers specific questions or challenges to his viewpoint. This suggests to me that he is not interested in examining his arguments with external evidence; he feels he's right, and that's enough for him.

You are being so kind. I take my hat off to you for these kind, conciliatory words. It is a skill that I am sorely lacking.

But even children MUST learn that feelings do not equate to facts. Magical thinking can not be a substitute for rational analysis. Some people refuse to be confused by the facts because they already made up their minds. These forums are the wrong place for that mindset.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Islander

[Jim108]

Not at all, we are defending Christ's right to run the administration of his church how he sees fit, and the priesthood is the office of administration, not salvation. Salvation has always been opened to ALL.

Jesus discriminated (by your definition, not mine, as I think he has a design and purpose for all things that are indeed centered around love).

Take a look at the bible, Matthew Ch. 15:

It is obvious that Christ, for HIS reasons, discriminated against this Gentile woman. He practically called her a dog. But the point remains that the woman's faith still gained her everything --access to the gospel and it's healing powers-- through faith. The crumbs might be considered "salvation" or "the gospel," which is open to all. And every aspect of the gospel, prayer as well as faith, and blessings of many kinds based on faith, are and have always been available to ALL people every where, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, or gender.

The priesthood is an administrative order that keeps Christ's church from descending into chaos. God has ALWAYS been particular about who holds the priesthood. It was at one time limited only to Abraham himself and then only certain, not all, of his lineage.

Nobody ever said that. Throughout the history of the church, their have been men who held the priesthood who later turned out to be rather wicked people--so certainly, the priesthood in and of itself is not a measure of who is "better." Judas being the prime example.

I do understand how you would view this as an outsider; but it's not so egregious as you may think if it is weighed against all the other wonderful parts of the gospel (I'm a convert and I've already weighed these things out--20+ years ago). It's an administrative thing more than anything. And now, it is open to ALL worthy adult male members. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

So, Jesus, according to you, discriminates by the color of skin. I don't think so. You know this is so off that I am done with this thread. I love you all, God Bless you, Jim

[Faded]

You are being so kind. I take my hat off to you for these kind, conciliatory words. It is a skill that I am sorely lacking.

But even children MUST learn that feelings do not equate to facts. Magical thinking can not be a substitute for rational analysis. Some people refuse to be confused by the facts because they already made up their minds. These forums are the wrong place for that mindset.

Islander, I would remind you that this is one of the tiny handful of really really difficult spiritual hurdles that most Latter Day Saints must someday confront. Someone who is not of our faith isn't going to easily understand this because they're coming at it from a COMPLETELY different perspective. We accept Jospeh Smith and of his successors as true prophets of God. Jim doesn't have that perspective. Personally, the only way I can confront this issue is to remind myself of the following: "Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. God revealed this to his prophet. God has not offered an in-depth explanation, so I will probably just have to wait until the next life to understand why blacks were denied the Priesthood."

Jim doesn't have that same reassurance to base his conclusions on in this matter.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it's telling that, while Jim is happy to offer his opinion (as is appropriate on a discussion list), he rarely or never actually engages in point-by-point conversation or answers specific questions or challenges to his viewpoint. This suggests to me that he is not interested in examining his arguments with external evidence; he feels he's right, and that's enough for him.

So, Jesus, according to you, discriminates by the color of skin. I don't think so. You know this is so off that I am done with this thread.

Quod erat demonstratum. Well played, sir. Vort appears to have been dead-on.

[richlittell]

So, Jesus, according to you, discriminates by the color of skin. I don't think so. You know this is so off that I am done with this thread. I love you all, God Bless you, Jim

Yeah, sure, that is exactly what I said, almost a quote even.

I said, in my post, that was by YOUR definition--not mine, and I never said one single thing about color. I have no idea what color the woman was, I only know she was not a Jew. I didn't say anything about color when I talked about the priesthood-- I talked about Abraham and God's choice to choose only him and a certain lineage to hold the priesthood. You can call it discrimination if you like. I call it God being in charge of his own affairs and blessing whom he blesses.

I don't think Christ discriminates, not by the modern definition. But he does choose and elect all different kinds of people to accomplish his various designs, and the Bible is full of such particulars-- you can call it discrimination if YOU like, not me.

[Roland]

Here an extract from Michael R. Ash´s book "Shaken Faith Syndrome":

After the revelation of S.W. Kimball about the priesthood B.R. McConkie said:

Forget all that I have said, or what B. Young had said - or whosoever had said

what is contrary to the actual revelation. We have spoken with our limited

understanding and without the light and cognition that came to earth now.

Overaged and erring opinions are superseeded by revelation or an increased

understanding....Without revelation the members and the leaders of the church

are free to speculate.

This is from fairwiki:

Blacks and the priesthood - FAIRMormon

Sometimes God withholds certain blessings from certain people without explaining

why he does this. Sometimes this is a willful decision on his part expressed via

direct revelation to his prophet. At other times, God allows his prophets to act as

they feel best. In the case of the priesthood ban, we do not know which of these

scenarios is applicable. What we do know, however, is that the ban was lifted by

revelation in God's due time.

Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist

than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened,

given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation

creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of

assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.

Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony

with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon

precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made

in the dark can be done away with.

[bytebear]

So, Jesus, according to you, discriminates by the color of skin. I don't think so. You know this is so off that I am done with this thread. I love you all, God Bless you, Jim

The church never discriminated based on skin color. Pacific Islanders, New Zealanders and other various groups could always hold the priesthood and they often have skin which is very dark. Far darker than the typical African American.

[Justice]

You are holding up racial discrimination and defending it. I don't need to be better at scripture to know you are wrong. Jesus is Love. ...and this thread is everything but. Your positions are just wrong. It is not like Jesus to discriminate. Many religions are guilty of things in their past. The LDS religion is of no acception. I just cant believe none of you will admit to it. If you stand by LDS history than you are saying that before the revelation a white LDS member was better than a black member simply because of the color of his skin. This does not stand....ever. Jim

The Priesthood was only offered to certain "tribes," or decendants of tribes, in the Old Testament. It was the Lord's choice. I don't understand why He did it that way then, and I don't understand why now.

Remember when Jesus told the people of Moses "thou shalt not kill?" Then He said, "thou shalt utterly destroy?" Are you saying He was wrong for contradicting Himself?

Whatever God speaks is right, even if we can't understand it. Part of the test of this life is submitting to God's will, especially when we can't understand it.

[Islander]

Islander, I would remind you that this is one of the tiny handful of really really difficult spiritual hurdles that most Latter Day Saints must someday confront. Someone who is not of our faith isn't going to easily understand this because they're coming at it from a COMPLETELY different perspective. We accept Jospeh Smith and of his successors as true prophets of God. Jim doesn't have that perspective. Personally, the only way I can confront this issue is to remind myself of the following: "Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. God revealed this to his prophet. God has not offered an in-depth explanation, so I will probably just have to wait until the next life to understand why blacks were denied the Priesthood."

Jim doesn't have that same reassurance to base his conclusions on in this matter.

Thank you Faded:

You are absolutely right in your assessment of the situation. I just suggested to Jim10 that his opinions do not equate to facts. This is an issue I had studied in great detail years ago, me being black and this issue of race a significant point offered by the critics. I spent quite a few hours researching this issue and later pondering and praying about it.

His opinion based on a couple of bi-liners from anti-Mormon sites is voided of the facts. His refusal to discuss the fact is what I found annoying and frustrating. Again, I acknowledged that he is entitled to his own opinion but to present those as facts for a characterization of LDS history is just contention for the sake of it.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I don't but...

Please also beware of unnatural sexual acts that are just as immoral, if not worse, than traditional fornication or adultery."

- Elder Bruce C. Hafen, “Your Longing for Family Joy,” Ensign, Oct. 2003,

I have no recollection that the church has taught anything about what goes on in the privacy of a married couples' bedroom other than let the Holy Spirit guide.

The teachings you refer to were speaking to unmarried men and women.

"For example, as you date and hang out, even when you feel there is a growing foundation of love in a relationship, show your profound respect for that love—and for the doctrines about eternal love and family life—by bridling your passions. Don’t be deceived by the false idea that anything short of the sex act itself is okay. That is a lie, not only because one step overpoweringly leads to another, but because even touching another person’s body with sexual intent is part of the intimacy that is kept holy by the sanctuary of chastity. Please also beware of unnatural sexual acts that are just as immoral, if not worse, than traditional fornication or adultery. If for any reason you think you may have dashed your own hopes by a past mistake, I testify of the power of Christ’s Atonement when coupled with honest repentance."

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Your Longing for Family Joy

[Just_A_Guy]

January 5, 1982

To: All Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops; and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren:

As leaders it is our main purpose to save souls. We must love the people with whom we labor and let them know that we love them and are ready, willing, and anxious to help them wherever possible. . . .

In interviewing one for a temple recommend, the individual being interviewed should be reminded that the Lord has said that no unclean thing should enter His house. The procedure should be the same as for the other interviews.

When interviewing married persons, the one doing the interviewing should scrupulously avoid indelicate inquiries which may be offensive to the sensibilities of those being interviewed.

Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord. All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus on intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. [Emphasis added-JAG] If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it.

. . . . .

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

Gordon B. Hinckley

The First Presidency

A PDF of the letter can be found by a google search. I should note that it is a (relatively) long-ish letter dealing with a number of different situations that may come up during interviews.

[OtterPop]

If this Church is what it claims to be, then the doctrines, practies, teachings and policies are the revealed will of God Himself. . . . But to say that the practice was wrong would equate to stating that either God Himself was wrong, or our Prophets were not inspired of God.

Faded, you should think twice before stating categorically that all practices, teachings, and policies of the LDS church and its prophets are the revealed will of God himself. Most Mormons are much more moderate in their view of church "policy" and of when the prophets are actually inspired. One small example: read a few of Brigham Young's statements on race. They are impossible to defend. He was a man of his time, and it shows. The LDS church does not teach that its prophets are infallible, but that's what you appear to be saying here.

I remember reading somewhere (maybe on this board?) a comment that Mormons say their prophet is not infallible, but behave as if he is, while Catholics say the Pope is infallible but behave as if he isn't. I think there's a lot of truth in that.

[MarginOfError]

A PDF of the letter can be found by a google search. I should note that it is a (relatively) long-ish letter dealing with a number of different situations that may come up during interviews.

lest anyone get too crazy with this, the 1998 Church Handbook of Instructions effectively superceded all prior correspondence except for a March 1993 Priesthood Bulletin (p xiii). The current Church policy on sex acts is outlined in the Handbooks and communications from the First Presidency since 1998. Thus, this 1982 letter is really only of interest for historical considerations.

[Moksha]

but then I studied how the church grew in Western Africa. 20 years before the priesthood ban...

The missionary effort of the RLDS Church paid off. Even after they had discontinued their African mission, some people in Africa still fondly remembered the Book of Mormon.

[Moksha]

If you stand by LDS history than you are saying that before the revelation a white LDS member was better than a black member simply because of the color of his skin. This does not stand....ever. Jim

I think the definitive response to this was made by President Gordon Hinckley, who said racial discrimination has no place in the Church and anyone who engages in it is not a disciple of Christ. This bears an aura of truth both now and retroactively.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Jim, I feel really bad for all the terrible comments being leveled at you. Your personal beliefs are valid and understandable.

I will stand up and say that I believe the Priesthood Ban was wrong. I have found no revelation to support it. I believe God let us make that choice all on our own.

There are other LDS who believe the same thing. Sounds like a couple others who responded here believe that.

There are some great histories out there. I came across some people making a documentary about the history of blacks and the priesthood. It appears that about 7 black men were ordained before Joseph Smith died. The most famous being Elijah Able, whose been mentioned. It appears his son and grandson received permission to be ordained to the priesthood during the ban.

[Just_A_Guy]

lest anyone get too crazy with this, the 1998 Church Handbook of Instructions effectively superceded all prior correspondence except for a March 1993 Priesthood Bulletin (p xiii). The current Church policy on sex acts is outlined in the Handbooks and communications from the First Presidency since 1998. Thus, this 1982 letter is really only of interest for historical considerations.

Oh, absolutely. I apologize if I made it look like that was the current teaching of the Church--I just wanted to provide documentation for those who were unaware that it was ever taught at all.

[MarginOfError]

Oh, absolutely. I apologize if I made it look like that was the current teaching of the Church--I just wanted to provide documentation for those who were unaware that it was ever taught at all.

It was a little ambiguous what your intent was, but given your nature I had a good idea what you were trying to do. Unfortunately, in these threads, these things have an ability to take on a life of their own--not always a good thing.

Happy Easter all! I'm off to learn how to put a band aid on!

[hordak]

I have no recollection that the church has taught anything about what goes on in the privacy of a married couples' bedroom other than let the Holy Spirit guide.

The teachings you refer to were speaking to unmarried men and women.

"For example, as you date and hang out, even when you feel there is a growing foundation of love in a relationship, show your profound respect for that love—and for the doctrines about eternal love and family life—by bridling your passions. Don’t be deceived by the false idea that anything short of the sex act itself is okay. That is a lie, not only because one step overpoweringly leads to another, but because even touching another person’s body with sexual intent is part of the intimacy that is kept holy by the sanctuary of chastity. Please also beware of unnatural sexual acts that are just as immoral, if not worse, than traditional fornication or adultery. If for any reason you think you may have dashed your own hopes by a past mistake, I testify of the power of Christ’s Atonement when coupled with honest repentance."

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Your Longing for Family Joy

Fair enough. But to beat a dead horse my point is the church has had official policy that has changed with the times (see the official declaration posted by just a guy). This indicates there are a product of the men giving them. The priesthood ban fits this patern as well.

[Still_Small_Voice]

It appears reading the past letter that Spencer Kimball's opinion was against a lawfully married couple engaging in cunnilingus or fellatio in the privacy of their bedroom. I did not know that.

I wonder why he thought it was unnatural and a sin?

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . but given your nature I had a good idea what you were trying to do.

I'm not sure if that's a compliment or a condemnation!

I wonder why he thought it was unnatural and a sin?

I've heard he speaks about it at some length in The Miracle of Forgiveness; though I've not yet gotten around to reading the book.