Question about beliefs

[Spartan117]

Mormons claim to be led by prophets. Should not a higher standard apply. We should be the first to be enlightened. Not the last.

While I wholly agree with you, historically the church has not had the best reaction from society and (early on enough) any form of government while trying to break out with a new trend or idea. We're held to a divine commandment to support our government, pretty much no matter what. Since the early church was persecuted all over the country, for a lot of times just for existing, trying to take the lead in the civil rights arena might have been a fatal move for the church. I don't believe G-d takes his cue from man, but if His church is to make it from now until the second coming then things have to happen on a divine time table that we aren't capable of seeing. At first the gospel wasn't meant to be preached to the gentiles, only to the Jews. In the Lord's time that changed. I put the priesthood ban in that same category.

[pam]

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.

Yet you have repeatedly mentioned you support and sustain the Church leaders.

Blacks have been allowed to have the Priesthood since 1978. Is their Priesthood any less valid than a white person? Are blessings they give people done with any less faith, have any less value than those done by white people? It's thoughts like these that keep on promoting racism. Call it what YOU like but it's racism.

The quote in your signature contradicts what you have posted in this thread and on other threads.

I know many good, upstanding LDS black Priesthood holders. I love these men. I would much rather have a blessing done by one of them than by someone with this kind of attitude.

[ldseastcoast]

Yet you have repeatedly mentioned you support and sustain the Church leaders.

Blacks have been allowed to have the Priesthood since 1978. Is their Priesthood any less valid than a white person? Are blessings they give people done with any less faith, have any less value than those done by white people? It's thoughts like these that keep on promoting racism. Call it what YOU like but it's racism.

The quote in your signature contradicts what you have posted in this thread and on other threads.

I know many good, upstanding LDS black Priesthood holders. I love these men. I would much rather have a blessing done by one of them than by someone with this kind of attitude.

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.

[Jason_J]

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.

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.

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.

You may not be okay with what? Getting an ordination or blessing from a black priesthood holder?

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.

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?

[pam]

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.

Well I find that extremely contradictory. In allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood versus scripture teachings, it seems to me that the church would then be going against what the scriptures teach. Isn't that what we have modern revelation for?

[ldseastcoast]

You may not be okay with what? Getting an ordination or blessing from a black priesthood holder?

Precisely.

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?

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

[Jason_J]

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.

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.

[ldseastcoast]

Well I find that extremely contradictory. In allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood versus scripture teachings, it seems to me that the church would then be going against what the scriptures teach. Isn't that what we have modern revelation for?

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.

[ldseastcoast]

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.

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.

[Jason_J]

Precisely.

See above.

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

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.

[ldseastcoast]

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.

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

[Jason_J]

I never said that it was. You're putting words in my mouth.

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.

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.

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.

[ldseastcoast]

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.

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.

Edited September 3, 2011 by ldseastcoast

[Jason_J]

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

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.

[pam]

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.

Yet you said in an earlier post you have had very little experience with black people. So now you are saying you are basing some of your thoughts on real life personal experiences with blacks?

So is that not then stereotyping? Which in turn leads to racism.

[pam]

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.

Jason let me interpret. With his history of posts:

When he brings up that there is contention it equates to people are not agreeing with me.

[ldseastcoast]

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.

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?

[ldseastcoast]

Yet you said in an earlier post you have had very little experience with black people. So now you are saying you are basing some of your thoughts on real life personal experiences with blacks?

So is that not then stereotyping? Which in turn leads to racism.

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?

[Jason_J]

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.

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.

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.

Right, and I was not addressing any of that.

This is what pertains to me, as in who ordains or blesses me.

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.

[pam]

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?

Because the thoughts you represent as your own could be interpreted incorrectly as what LDS believe as a whole. It's so far from the truth as to what we believe. I want no misunderstandings for those that may be lurking or those who might be investigating the church.

[ldseastcoast]

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.

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.

[pam]

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.

That is a contradiction right there. You would in fact be denying someone who is black the blessings of being able to use his priesthood authority to give a blessing.

So it's only SOME ordinances or blessings you wouldn't deny them?

[ldseastcoast]

Because the thoughts you represent as your own could be interpreted incorrectly as what LDS believe as a whole. It's so far from the truth as to what we believe. I want no misunderstandings for those that may be lurking or those who might be investigating the church.

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.

[pam]

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.

I'm not even talking about your signature. I'm talking about what you are posting on this thread. It's far from what we as LDS believe.

As the manager of lds.net I have the responsibility to make sure that this site clearly represents what we as LDS believe. As many hits as we get per day, yes I worry that some thoughts might be misinterpreted as fact.

[Jason_J]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.