The Priesthood Ban Is Still Official Doctrine Of The Lds Church

[Jeff K.]

No they aren't, its the other way around.... See you on the Enterprise you rebel!

[Deborah]

It was a Star Trek reference. People who are white on the right side are inferior.

I know, but didn't they end up in some time lock thing where the ended up battling forever.

[dougtheavenger]

The doctrine that the priesthood is or was once limited to members of the tribe of Levi is official doctrine of every Christian and Jewish denomination. The idea that discrimination by lineage in the priesthood was part of the general pattern of discrimination in American society is demonstrably false. To this day discrimination exist in the LDS church between literal descendants of Levi and Anglo-Americans in that Levites seem to be favored. The pattern of American discrimination has been to favor Anglos.

[Tepui]

To this day discrimination exist in the LDS church between literal descendants of Levi and Anglo-Americans in that Levites seem to be favored.

Descendants of Levi versus Anglo-Americans? Why are you comparing a tribe of Israel to a nation's population? Can't an Anglo-American also be a Levite?

Do you know of any Lev"ites" in the LDS Church to whom discriminatory favor is being given? You seem to be confused about D&C 68:19.

It's referring to a righteous individual, whether or not he's a literal descendant of Aaron.

[Flyonthewall]

I know, but didn't they end up in some time lock thing where the ended up battling forever.

I think you are referring to the episode titled "The Alternative Factor" where a man named Lazarus fights with his anti-matter self and is trapped inbetween the matter and anti-matter universes.

(probably more than you wanted to know)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alternative_Factor

[KevinG]

[Deborah]

I think you are referring to the episode titled "The Alternative Factor" where a man named Lazarus fights with his anti-matter self and is trapped inbetween the matter and anti-matter universes.

(probably more than you wanted to know)

http://en.wikipedia....ernative_Factor

So how did the black and white episode end? It seems like they were still fighting but it's been a long time. (Sorry for the derail, but I'm curious).

[Flyonthewall]

So how did the black and white episode end? It seems like they were still fighting but it's been a long time. (Sorry for the derail, but I'm curious).

"Instead of calling a truce, the two beings begin to blame each other for the destruction of the planet and a physical brawl ensues. As the two aliens fight, their innate powers radiate, cloaking them with an energy aura that threatens to damage the ship. With no other choice, Kirk sadly allows the two aliens to chase each other down to their obliterated world to decide their own fates, consumed by their now self-perpetuating mutual hate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield

[BCSpace]

So how did the black and white episode end? It seems like they were still fighting but it's been a long time. (Sorry for the derail, but I'm curious).

"Instead of calling a truce, the two beings begin to blame each other for the destruction of the planet and a physical brawl ensues. As the two aliens fight, their innate powers radiate, cloaking them with an energy aura that threatens to damage the ship. With no other choice, Kirk sadly allows the two aliens to chase each other down to their obliterated world to decide their own fates, consumed by their now self-perpetuating mutual hate."

One may freely watch (with commercials) that and the full versions of many other Star Trek:TOS and Animated Series shows here:

http://www.startrek....Ym2xy5JX56MIoJk

Kirk: "Your prognosis Doctor?"

McCoy: "Well I can't give you one Jim. I've never worked on anyone like him or anything like him."

Spock: "Yet you are pumping him full of your noxious potions as if he were a human Doctor."

Edited February 25, 2012 by BCSpace

[BlueDreams]

Sheesh, you guys are nerdy.

And it's the left side for me, I'm pretty sure.

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

The cursed lineage was an idea that was already existant in the American scene as a means to justify slavery

Yet the notion is also found in Christian scripture which predates American slavery by several thousand years. It is more logical and rational to say that justification for modern slavery is an erroneous and sinful outgrowth of true doctrine than the other way around.

[BlueDreams]

Yet the notion is also found in Christian scripture which predates American slavery by several thousand years. It is more logical and rational to say that justification for modern slavery is an erroneous and sinful outgrowth of true doctrine than the other way around.

It's only present in Christian scripture if you read it in there. I personally don't see it. There were major reasons to justify discrimination back in the day...it was their entire culture, belief, and in many ways the base of their economy and governing structures. A sense of God sanctioned discrimination or some form of spiritual superiority were quite usefull. It's a whole lot easier when the people you're conquering, exporting, and invading are considered less-than on some fundamental measure when abusing them. Race, as we know it today, didn't even exist pre-colonialism....it wasn't ancient mediterranean culture. It was them (our early colonialist period ancestors), reading with major culturally-biased lenses.

We still do it....we still have some major culturally biased lenses over our eyes. A personal example I noticed recently. I always assumed the Proclamation to the Fam promoted the idea of women as housewives. Until I read it this last year. To my shock, though I know I've read it before, I realized there wasn't anything that said that. You have to read it with the initial cultural expectation that such an idea is correct or expected for it to be there.

With luv,

BD

[Zeta-Flux]

I had two threads closed due to the fact there are apparently other threads (like this one) on the priesthood ban. As we all know, we don't argue with moderators! :-) So I'll ask my questions here. (For context see: this thread about deciding what is authoritative.)

In response to a question of authority, JeremyOrbe-Smith claimed that the only authority is "truth". I'm trying to wrap my head around that. On the one hand, I agree that we, in our personal lives, are only bound to obey God. If anyone, including the prophet, asks us to *do* or *believe* anything, we can go to God and cofirm for ourselves whether or not what the prophet said is true.

On the other hand, what do we do in the rare case where we believe God has told us that the teaching is false? Does the fact that we believe we know the truth give us the authority to publicly dispute what the prophet has said? Is it really "amen" to the priesthood of the prophet if they are mistaken, and *WE* then know that their priesthood has been "amen"ed? Is there really no authority inherent by being called by God to be a General Authority? Is it right to publicly contradict a prophet if you think he is mistaken?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Well, yeah.

We don't have to be a jerk about it, like some of the September Five (I don't include Avraham Gileadi, so the nice alliteration is lost), but it's perfectly fine to express disagreement. I can disagree with someone and yet still sustain them in their calling and believe they receive inspiration, just like we do in our home wards. The point is to bind each other to the unified church body so that we can form communities to serve one another. The point is not to rely on someone else to think for you.

It's very possible for our leaders to err, and it's frightening that some of us have become so complacent that we even need to point this out. Read the Bible, and see countless examples of Prophets and Churches in serious need of repentance. President Woodruff said quite explicitly that "the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

He isn't saying that Presidents can never lead us astray just because they're called as Presidents. He's saying there is real danger that if they do, they will be removed. Their "authority" will become void. Amen to their Priesthood, the Heavens withdrawn. Some people try to twist this scripture into granting Presidents some sort of weird quasi-Papal infallibility, but if it's impossible for Presidents to sin, then their Free Agency has been nullified. If the works of Justice are destroyed, God Himself would cease to be a God worth worshipping. (And please don't argue that "well, if someone's been called as President, then they wouldn't do something like that." Read some history. And remember that Lucifer himself was once a beloved Son of the Morning.)

It's not an empty ritualistic gesture to pray to receive confirmation that what a Prophet speaks is true. It is a solemn duty.

I'd be seriously concerned if everything I said "over the pulpit" while acting in my office of Elder's Quorum teacher was taken to be infallible and direct-from-God just because I have the "authority" to teach it. The only authority is truth. If I teach false doctrine, I hope someone will be wise enough to correct me (and nice enough to do so kindly!). In fact, I have been corrected, and have corrected other teachers. On the other hand, maybe we're operating under limited light, and someday we'll realize that both "corrections" were wrong. Live and learn.

The funny thing is, I've had people who disagree with me state that they did so because they believed that authorities had said something counter to what I was teaching ... while I was in a position of "authority" over them. In effect, they were confessing that they were just as much an arrogant judge of the truth as I am, finite mortal mind and all. If they truly believed that everything their leaders did was %100 inspired just because they had been called to a particular office in the Church, then they should not have disagreed with me. They were judging truth based not on who taught it, but whether or not it was true. Which is wonderful! That's exactly what we should be aiming for! (I was still right, though. *grin* In that case.) It's the excuse of saying that they did so because they were "more faithful" that's the annoying red-herring. I have faith in the Church. But even the most cursory reading of history will show that we have, at the very least, made some significant errors.

Look, we all learn line upon line. The point is not to cast doubt on our leaders, but simply recognize that they can make mistakes. Frankly, I don't think President Uchtdorf was particularly "inspired" when he used Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to illustrate some points in his 'Forget Me Not' talk. It left me, personally, quite cold, as if he was trivializing the gospel. But was he "wrong" to do so? I sincerely doubt it. I know some people who felt very inspired by it -- not just the talk, but that particular example. So maybe Uchtdorf was being inspired to give counsel to those people, to speak in their language, and I'll just have to wait my turn to hear something enlightening ... and sustain him in the meantime! He's such a cool cat that it's not exactly hard to do.

On the other hand, if, starting tomorrow, the brethren began teaching that Priesthood was restricted by race, for reasons which I cannot fathom, I'd quite happily leave the church, and good riddance. People will inevitably say stuff like "God's will can sometimes be beyond our finite mortal minds, so just have faith", but that's a complete cop-out. They're using their finite mortal minds to come to that conclusion itself, and finite mortal minds are all we have to reason with. I find it appalling when Latter-Day Saints stoop to this kind of misdirection, since one of our core beliefs is that the glory of God is intelligence, and God is a man. Much of Christianity can (and does) get away with the "oh, it's too mysterious for you mere humans to understand, so get in line" card, but that's because they've drawn a sharp dividing line between what is Human and what is Divine. It's inexcusable for we who believe that mankind is literally in the image of deity.

I can't have faith in a practice if I don't understand it. It's hard enough for me to deal with the exclusion of women from the Priesthood, and it was pretty difficult to join the church in spite of it. I think it's absolutely wrong, and will be done away with sooner or later, but I really hope it's sooner. Of course, while I believe it's merely a policy decision that could be changed this afternoon, others have the notion that it's some sort of divine decree expressing some deep (and completely inexplainable) "truth". But if someone asks me whether I believe it's wrong, I will tell them "yeah, totally."

... while still sustaining my Prophet.

The Church doesn't have to be perfect to be true.

Edited February 26, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

How about the September Sort of Six or September Sixish?

Edited February 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Jeff K.]

The only authority is truth, that is true in that we seek truth. Truth is not the "only" authority. It is the touchstone of what we preach, it is knowledge. But truth is not love, it can help us understand love and other things, but one can have "truth" and still reject Christ. Satan has a sure knowledge, if you wish he holds the truth within him. That does not give him authority.

Authority is the power to judge and the power to utilize. We often use that authority without knowing the whole of the truth, that is why we often act in faith. To state that authority is truth is to undermine truth, and undermine authority.

[Deborah]

I can't have faith in a practice if I don't understand it.

And yet Adam when asked by the angel why he was making sacrifices on the altar responded that he knew not save the Lord commanded it. He was then rewarded with the answer after the show of his faith.

The purpose of praying on the prophet's or any other leader's words is not so much to prove them right or wrong but to be one in purpose with that leader and with God. We don't always have to understand the reasons for why something should be done.

The Church doesn't have to be perfect to be true.

I would rephrase that as the people don't have to be perfect for the church to be true.

I do believe that Brigham Young was a great and inspired prophet, but I also believe he carried forward many of the traditions of his day into his sermons, which weren't always revelation but often his understanding based on what he understood from the restored gospel and what he had been taught all his life. In his time many of the people believed the same things so when he taught his sermons on Priesthood he wasn't greeted with gasps but with nods of agreement. Were he alive today I have no doubt he would not be teaching the same types of things because his understanding, as our understanding, would be different.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

And yet Adam when asked by the angel why he was making sacrifices on the altar responded that he knew not save the Lord commanded it.

And yet I read that as a condemnation of Adam, not a celebration of ignorance.

In Isaiah 1:15 and D&C 50:11 God says "let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face."

And Acts 17:2 says that "Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures."

And in Acts 18:4 Paul "reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks."

And Hebrews 5:12 says that "for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

And Acts 24:24 says that "after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee."

And 1 Peter 3:15 says to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

And we could continue to multiply the prooftexts, but what's the point? They're only useful insofar as we're able to independently judge that they're true.

I cannot have faith in something if I cannot understand it. Blind faith is worse than useless, it's actively dangerous. "Send this Jew to the gas chamber! Don't ask why; with your finite mortal mind you wouldn't understand anyway, and you'll be rewarded for your faith later!"

I have faith in the Gods who have written that they are working to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind. That is a very good reason to have faith in them, and it is only good insofar as they are truthful.

Edited February 26, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Deborah]

And yet I read that as a condemnation of Adam, not a celebration of ignorance.

Where do you get that it was a condemnation? Adam was blessed for his faith and was taught understanding but first he had to show his faith.

You seem to be confusing faith with something else. As Alma 32:21 says "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Believing in something that isn't true isn't faith. Faith is based on prior experience with the Lord and trusting in him.

"Send this Jew to the gas chamber! Don't ask why; with your finite mortal mind you wouldn't understand anyway, and you'll be rewarded for your faith later!"

This is a ridiculous analogy since this isn't an example of faith at all but of blind obedience. Faith is not blind even if one doesn't fully understand the reasons for something.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It reads to me more like the Angel is chastising Adam for not understanding what the heck he was doing. And for good reason. If anything, I see that story as a polemic against empty, meaningless ritual.

I see little substantive difference between unreasoned faith and blind obedience, since the one leads directly to the other. Notice how much persuading it took to get Nephi to kill.

Edited February 26, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Deborah]

It reads to me more like the Angel is chastising Adam for not understanding what the heck he was doing. And for good reason. If anything, I see that story as a polemic against empty, meaningless ritual.

If you read Moses 5 it gives the order of things. First Adam was given commandments and told to make an offering to the Lord. Then the angel came and asked him if he knew why he was commanded to do so. Adam said no but he was doing it because the Lord commanded it. The angel then explained the principle behind it. I don't see any implication of chastising but rather of rewarding faith.

I see little substantive difference between unreasoned faith and blind obedience, since the one leads directly to the other.

Then you are not understanding faith. Faith is not unreasoning. It in fact requires one to examine with heart and mind why he is following something that he may not fully understand. Adam knew God and trusted him. If God told him to do something he did it. Nephi was a young man who at this stage with Laban had some experiences but not the depth of experience he would later have. The angel did reason with Nephi and when Nephi understood the necessity of doing what the Lord told him he obeyed. As we see him mature he doesn't question but follows the commands of the Lord. This isn't blind faith but faith built on trust that the Lord has a reason and will do as he says.

[thesometimesaint]

Bluedreams:

Slavery has existed on every quarter of the globe for a very long time now.

[BlueDreams]

Bluedreams:

Slavery has existed on every quarter of the globe for a very long time now.

True...but colonialism hasn't. I wasn't talking simply about slavery...or even africans for that matter. I was talking about colonialism and slavery within that frame of reference. It's colonialism and the spread of european influence and domination that developed ideas about race quite differently from any other time period... and relationships between regions of the world dramatically as well. These dominating relationships place europeans on top and started race categorization distinctly from any other time period. Justification/explanation for differences ranged from science to religion to culture. But all noted some distinct belief of innate differences that naturally made (rich) white men above all others. How black people were seen in the U.S is a subset of colonialism, having distinct racial demographics and power relationships.

But slavery of any sort usually has some form of justification that places people at a lower level and thus allowed to be abused. Caste systems, religious ideology, orphaned children, foreign women, etc.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 26, 2012 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

bluedreams:

Yes and no. The ancients didn't have colonialism as was practiced here just about 2 centuries ago(There are still Possessions, and Commonwealths of the US). The ancients just conquered the peoples and forced them into slavery. There was one difference in their and our practice of slavery however. Theirs was more a statement of wealth, while ours was more to aquire more, and maintain that wealth. But neither one was purely for either purpose.

[BlueDreams]

Sorry, I should have said now at the end of my sentence:

Caste systems, religious ideology, orphaned children, foreign women, etc are some justifications now for slavery.

....but all this talk has me confused. I think we're misunderstanding each other. When BC was talking about "the notion" i thought he was specifically talking about africans as slaves. Not slavery itself....which many believed there was justification for blacks to be slaves in the bible (curse of cain, egyptian retribution, and such). That's what I meant by it's not there unless you expect to find it. Of course slavery is in the bible....not exactly the greatest justification for it....their practices were distinctive to most slavery and had some limitations at least on the jewish end of things. But I wouldn't try to argue that it's not there in some fashion...leviticus is quite explicit about how slaves are treated and maintained within israel and the NT references forms of servitude and expected attitudes toward servants as well. The idea that blacks/african-descent (for the lineage debate) are cursed isn't. There's no good biblical justification for colonial practices...especially sense love of money and domination wasn't exactly on Christ's high end of virtues.

With luv,

BD