Question about beliefs

[ldseastcoast]

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?

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.

[ldseastcoast]

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.

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!

[pam]

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.

I fail to see how my view is narrow. Perhaps look in the mirror.

[ldseastcoast]

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.

Easy solution then. Let's never have an opinion on anything again. Fair enough?

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.

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.

[ldseastcoast]

I fail to see how my view is narrow. Perhaps look in the mirror.

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

[Jason_J]

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.

No, it's not paranoid, it's how forums work. People lurk, find the thread through google, etc., read the posts, and form their own ideas.

[ldseastcoast]

No, it's not paranoid, it's how forums work. People lurk, find the thread through google, etc., read the posts, and form their own ideas.

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.

[Spartan117]

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.

And equally stupid

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

I think it is you who has not followed through on their church studies. The "curse" idea you're clinging to for justification has been put to rest in this thread more than once, but in case you missed it, Bruce R. McConkie has cleared this up for you ...

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. . . . All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

No one, at any point, has said anything about mandatory priesthood ordinances performed by a black priesthood holder, especially when it comes to a situation where you have the privilege of choosing who will lay their hands on your head. YOU keep parroting that back to any response that shows your views for what they are, like we're really misunderstanding you and you're the victim here.

You think you're justified in making racist comments because you have this popular yet very unfounded idea about blacks and a curse. You are wrong all over the place. And you are in fact making racist comments and displaying a clearly racist personal view, dress it up however you like. Contrary to what you may want to think, racism is not in the eye of the beholder and the scriptures don't hold a pass to be ignorant and an *** because of your own special interpretation, especially when an Apostle of God made this matter very clear for anyone who might be confused. You aren't clever and you never had any kind of leg to stand on in the first place. You should take your own advice and be mute now.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Spartan117

[Jason_J]

Easy solution then. Let's never have an opinion on anything again. Fair enough?

And again, the issue is not about having opinions, it is about whether said opinion is consistent with the teachings and scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ.

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.

Of course, however neither situation (not receiving ordinances from someone that holds the priesthood just because of their race) has any scriptural basis, and that is the issue.

[Jason_J]

And if they can't separate opinions from doctrine, then as I said, there are deeper problems afoot, namely reading comprehension.

So the investigator is supposed to automatically know what is opinion and what is doctrine? If an investigator googles "blacks and the priesthood", and finds posts in this thread that say blacks are closer to Satan, I wouldn't want blessings from "the black man", etc., then they'd leave thinking "wow, they are racist!". Do you think the critic even cares when they copy/paste what someone says and states "look, this is what Mormons believe, they are racist!". You really don't know how this works.

Let's never have an opinion again, for fear it may turn off an investigator.

And again, the issue is not about having opinions. It is about whether the opinions are consistent with the Church of Jesus Christ's teachings.

[Spartan117]

And if they can't separate opinions from doctrine, then as I said, there are deeper problems afoot, namely reading comprehension.

This is the best irony ever.

[pam]

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

Oh heavens no. That would make some men walk rather girly.

[ldseastcoast]

And equally stupid

I think it is you who has not followed through on their church studies. The "curse" idea you're clinging to for justification has been put to rest in this thread more than once, but in case you missed it, Bruce R. McConkie has cleared this up for you ...

No one, at any point, has said anything about mandatory priesthood ordinances performed by a black priesthood holder, especially when it comes to a situation where you have the privilege of choosing who will lay their hands on your head. YOU keep parroting that back to any response that shows your views for what they are, like we're really misunderstanding you and you're the victim here.

You think you're justified in making racist comments because you have this popular yet very unfounded idea about blacks and a curse. You are wrong all over the place. And you are in fact making racist comments and displaying a clearly racist personal view, dress it up however you like. Contrary to what you may want to think, racism is not in the eye of the beholder and the scriptures don't hold a pass to be ignorant and an *** because of your own special interpretation, especially when an Apostle of God made this matter very clear for anyone who might be confused. You aren't clever and you never had any kind of leg to stand on in the first place. You should take your own advice and be mute now.

You have a lot of anger in your heart. I would urge you to seek counsel from your priesthood authority. Did you marry a black woman, is that what this is about?

[ldseastcoast]

So the investigator is supposed to automatically know what is opinion and what is doctrine? If an investigator googles "blacks and the priesthood", and finds posts in this thread that say blacks are closer to Satan, I wouldn't want blessings from "the black man", etc., then they'd leave thinking "wow, they are racist!". Do you think the critic even cares when they copy/paste what someone says and states "look, this is what Mormons believe, they are racist!". You really don't know how this works.

And again, the issue is not about having opinions. It is about whether the opinions are consistent with the Church of Jesus Christ's teachings.

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!

[pam]

Okay that's it. Thread closed. Decision was based on a comment which has been deleted. But I only see this thread going in that direction.

[skippy740]

ldseastcoast,

I want to address two points with you.

#1 - Yes, you have the choice on who you can personally accept priesthood blessings and ordinances from. If I had a quarrel or just a bad feeling about someone, I don't have to accept a blessing from that person. You don't have to justify this reason to anybody.

#2 - If your feeling uncomfortable because of "what the scriptures say", then you simply don't understand the scriptures.

Most people would read the entire thread before posting their opinions. Might I suggest that you start over in this thread? Or better yet, click on my signature link and start reading there?

LDS Church News - Pres. Hinckley calls racism 'ugly and unacceptable'

"I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ," said President Hinckley.

Here's a tip: Quit watching TV and watching all those "COPS" reruns. They're having a bad influence on your spirit and your view of the human race.