It'S Coming, It'S Not Good And It'S Time To Recognize It!

[Buckeye]

Please list the "wrongs" brought upon blacks by the church. Were they denied any rights within the church? What exactly are you so up in arms about?

It goes something like this:

1) The priesthood keys were given to Joseph and Oliver, including the keys to establish the church, ordain others to the priesthood, and provide ordiances of salvation, including the capstone ordinance of sealing couples and families together for eternity.

2) Joseph initially ordained all worthy men, including black men.

3) The keys were passed down to the 12 and were exercised by successive prophets.

4) At some time that practice was changed and black men were denied the priesthood.

5) The change caused significant harm to individuals, families and the church. Black men could not officiate in ordinances and were thus denied the spiritual bond that comes through such experiences. Black individuals could not receive the higher ordinances of the temple. Black families could not be sealed. And the church was denied the unity that comes through shared priesthood ordiances. The wrongful exclusion of anyone means the church cannot be fully united. The church must be fully united - "be as one" - before it can return to the father.

6) In short, while it was in effect, the priesthood ban damned individuals, families and the entire church. [Damned in the scriptural sense that progression was stopped]

[Pahoran]

To be clear, do you agree with Pahoran's sentiment as to the priesthood ban or his sentiment that those who think the ban was wrong and should be apologized for should find their way out of the church?

To be clear: if you actually bother to read what I wrote instead of responding to it with a reflexive twitch of a lower leg joint, you'll find that you have not understood, or at least not correctly represented, my position.

My position is that if a person thinks that something that happened 34 years ago is just too horrible for them to live with in the Church, then they are clearly not going to be comfortable in it; and instead of demanding that the Church change its position in order to assuage their wounded feelings, they should reconsider their own position.

My position is further that a faithful Latter-day Saint really ought to expect to live in some degree of tension with a lost, fallen and increasingly wicked world. If someone can't handle the tension of a policy that was not entirely politically correct, by the canons of early 21st century society, and which ended thirty-four years ago, then it seems to me that their tolerance for tension is rather low.

Understand: the Priesthood ban consisted in the Church withholding a privilege it was not then and is not now obligated to bestow upon anybody. Exactly who is owed an apology, and for what?

I don't think anyone gets kicked off of boards for the former, but they do for personal attacks such as the latter.

What "personal attacks?" You have cited none.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Anijen]

So, let's see if I understand this correctly.

Person A brings an accusation of institutional racism against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Person B defends the Church by suggesting that the accusation proceeds from a lack of imagination.

An anonymous mod turfs person B out of the thread.

Am I the only one who remembers when this forum was one of the few places on the internet where orthodox Mormon voices could speak up in defense of the Church without fear of heavy-handed censorship?

Regards,

Pahoran

I have sensed this as well. I used to be a bit more abrasive in my replies to known bomb throwers. I have had to occasionally bite my tongue (fingers from typing). Although that is probably not a bad thing. Perhaps I too will get banned I hope not. It appears to me Xander, Jaybear, Rob, and others can say about anything and if I were to use the same amount of bite as they have been given the leeway to do perhaps I would get a warning.

For example there are some very respectful non LDS such as Mudcat, 3DOP and others that I do not see them getting banned for what they write (and should not be banned). But some posts I have read by others seem to get a whole lot of leeway. I wish it were back like it used to be.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Buckeye]

To be clear: if you actually bother to read what I wrote instead of responding to it with a reflexive twitch of a lower leg joint, you'll find that you have not understood, or at least not correctly represented, my position.

My position is that if a person thinks that something that happened 34 years ago is just too horrible for them to live with in the Church, then they are clearly not going to be comfortable in it; and instead of demanding that the Church change its position in order to assuage their wounded feelings, they should reconsider their own position.

My position is further that a faithful Latter-day Saint really ought to expect to live in some degree of tension with a lost, fallen and increasingly wicked world. If someone can't handle the tension of a policy that was not entirely politically correct, by the canons of early 21st century society, and which ended thirty-four years ago, then it seems to me that their tolerance for tension is rather low.

Understand: the Priesthood ban consisted in the Church withholding a privilege it was not then and is not now obligated to bestow upon anybody. Exactly who is owed an apology, and for what?

What "personal attacks?" You have cited none.

Regards,

Pahoran

The "personal attack" is where you suggested I leave the church. That crosses the line.

I am plenty happy with the church. We're not where we need to be yet, but we're making progress. In my view, part of that progress is repenting of prior wrongs and doing them no more. I don't care if you call that political correctness or not. Depriving families of sealing ordinances purely on the basis of race is wrong. It harmed families and the church. As a people, we cannot expect to attain the fullness of the measure of Christ until we repent of this wrong. I'm happy to be patient as long as is necessary. Others were patient in waiting for the ban to be lifted.

We'll just have to disagree about obligations. In my view, when Joseph received the priesthood keys, the church received the obligation to extend all priesthood blessings to all mankind. We are obligated to take the gospel - including the priesthood - to all nations, black and white. It was wrong to set aside that obligation for 130 years.

[CV75]

Our leaders need to get smart sooner before later. I fear this will take the Church backwards 100 years!

We need a formal apology NOW!

LDS leaders will deal with things that threaten the Church; the candidates will deal with things that threaten their electability.

Where this issue is being raised to target a candidate, and to provoke the candidate into explain/defend/apologize, and otherwise detract from his political aims by putting him on the spot and framed in a bad light, there is really very little interest in the Church itself.

The collateral impact on the Church might affect its mission effectiveness with those engaged in this kind of political maneuvering (and mostly because they are more inclined to the politics involved here). Such activity is not a threat to the Church, and the way the Gospel message is most effectively spread, there are many ways around the potential problems.

...and I'm a Mormon, and a lot of people know me!

[Pahoran]

The "personal attack" is where you suggested I leave the church. That crosses the line.

"It's all about meeeeeeeee!"

Except I wasn't even referring to you.

I am plenty happy with the church. We're not where we need to be yet, but we're making progress.

And when the Church agrees with you, then it will be perfect?

In my view, part of that progress is repenting of prior wrongs and doing them no more. I don't care if you call that political correctness or not. Depriving families of sealing ordinances purely on the basis of race is wrong. It harmed families and the church.

Yes, I read your screed on that point. With some puzzlement.

Even today, something like 99.9% of the world's population have no access to the Sealing ordinances at all, and yet you are in a state of towering indignation about a nano-fraction of that overwhelming majority?

You see Buckeye, what I'm not getting is the notion that anyone was "deprived." Black Latter-day Saints pre-1978 had access to the Restored Gospel and to the ordinances of Baptism and the Laying on of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost by those who had the proper authority. Granted that there were other privileges they did not then have, that still made them better off spiritually than the vast majority of non-Blacks; including, not to put too fine a point on it, at least 99% of White Americans. To use a monetary analogy, instead of inheriting billions, they inherited millions while everyone else was in relative poverty -- and that made them "deprived?"

I think you value the first ordinances too low.

As a people, we cannot expect to attain the fullness of the measure of Christ until we repent of this wrong.

You go ahead and repent of whatever wrongs you've done. I'll repent of whatever wrongs I've done.

You might like to start with your astonishing arrogance.

I'm happy to be patient as long as is necessary.

How extraordinarily magnanimous. Or something.

Others were patient in waiting for the ban to be lifted.

And we were delighted when it happened.

And now it's so far behind us that most living Latter-day Saints only know about it because of internet agitators.

We'll just have to disagree about obligations. In my view, when Joseph received the priesthood keys, the church received the obligation to extend all priesthood blessings to all mankind. We are obligated to take the gospel - including the priesthood - to all nations, black and white. It was wrong to set aside that obligation for 130 years.

Thank you for your perfectly sanitised, politically correct, early 21st century opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

For example there are some very respectful non LDS such as Mudcat, 3DOP and others

And there are some very respectful orthodox LDS such CV75 and.......and.........and CV75.

[Buckeye]

"It's all about meeeeeeeee!"

Except I wasn't even referring to you.

If you weren't referring to me then I misunderstood. I apologize. But regardless of who you were referring to, a line was crossed.

...

Yes, I read your screed on that point. With some puzzlement.

Even today, something like 99.9% of the world's population have no access to the Sealing ordinances at all, and yet you are in a state of towering indignation about a nano-fraction of that overwhelming majority?

Can you not see the difference between Situation A (families in darkness because the gospel as not reached them) and Situation B (families who have embraced the gospel and are told "sorry, no sealing for you until all the white people have a chance") ?? The first is a due to our limited resources and efforts. The second is a needless exclusion that serves no purpose.

You see Buckeye, what I'm not getting is the notion that anyone was "deprived." Black Latter-day Saints pre-1978 had access to the Restored Gospel and to the ordinances of Baptism and the Laying on of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost by those who had the proper authority. Granted that there were other privileges they did not then have, that still made them better off spiritually than the vast majority of non-Blacks; including, not to put too fine a point on it, at least 99% of White Americans. To use a monetary analogy, instead of inheriting billions, they inherited millions while everyone else was in relative poverty -- and that made them "deprived?"

Your own logic shows that people were deprived. When Father wants to give a family "billions" but his servants limit the family to "millions", by definition they are deprived of most of what Father intends. I personally know of the great value of the temple and sealing ordinances. Thus I know of the great blessings that were deprived to these families. I think you do to.

[cinepro]

What has that got to do with the LDS Church?

I suspect that question will be asked and answered in a myriad of ways in the next seven months.

[wenglund]

Even were I to believe people then or now are somehow owed an apology from the Church (I don't--the notion strikes me as patently absurd), I am of the opinion that it is remarkably naive to think that an apology would appease the race-baiters and make life better for one and all.

This is because for the race-baiters, it really isn't about improving race relations, healing, or even about race itself. Instead, it is about manipulation--inciting the "useful idiots" to their advantage, whipping the public into an emotional frenzy so as to gain attention, curry sympathy, damage their opponents, thus leveraging their political clout. It is all about propaganda and politics. Simple as that.

I am sad to report, but the well-meaning apology-seekers here have been played like fiddle. And, if anyone is deserving of an apology, it is them, and this from the race-baiters who have used them.

Sadder still, it is unlikely that the apology-seekers will view it this way, and that is okay. So, for their benefit, I propose that they gather here on this thread at 10pm EST, and commence then with their weeping and wailing and profusion of mournful apologies on behalf of the Church and to whomever, and I will be pleased to provide them with sackcloth and ashes to do this up right, once and for all.

And, even though it will be as a wisp of smoke in the wind, a meaningless gesture, at least the apology-seekers will have the satisfaction of getting what they so desperately need.

See you then?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

If you weren't referring to me then I misunderstood. I apologize. But regardless of who you were referring to, a line was crossed.

It's a favorite slight of hand trick. It goes somethin like this:

A poster makes a comment

A respondant responds with disdain for the comment. He/she then proceeds to say something to the affect as "it's astonishing how certain people have <insert any number of moral failings> and are on the road to apostacy.

The initial poster then calls the respondant on a personal invective.

The respondant then says, "What makes you think I was speaking about you"

[jwhitlock]

We'll just have to disagree about obligations. In my view, when Joseph received the priesthood keys, the church received the obligation to extend all priesthood blessings to all mankind. We are obligated to take the gospel - including the priesthood - to all nations, black and white. It was wrong to set aside that obligation for 130 years.

Kind of like how it was wrong for Christ to prohibit the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles for a certain period of time.

[Pahoran]

It's a favorite slight of hand trick. It goes somethin like this:

A poster makes a comment

A respondant responds with disdain for the comment. He/she then proceeds to say something to the affect as "it's astonishing how certain people have <insert any number of moral failings> and are on the road to apostacy.

The initial poster then calls the respondant on a personal invective.

The respondant then says, "What makes you think I was speaking about you"

The only trouble with your silly caricature highly entertaining summary is that it does not represent the actual history of this discussion as it unfolded.

But hey -- don't let anything as trivial as facts slow you down!

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

I suspect that question will be asked and answered in a myriad of ways in the next seven months.

That looks like a cop out to me. So you are expecting that question to be answered in a myriad ways in the next seven months; but you cannot think of one good answer to give to me right now?

[Senator]

The only trouble with your silly caricature highly entertaining summary is that it does not represent the actual history of this discussion as it unfolded.

Ohhh but it does!

an das a fact!

[jwhitlock]

The collateral impact on the Church might affect its mission effectiveness with those engaged in this kind of political maneuvering (and mostly because they are more inclined to the politics involved here). Such activity is not a threat to the Church, and the way the Gospel message is most effectively spread, there are many ways around the potential problems.

I'm interested to see if Romney will handle this attack - which is going to come - appropriately. The best way to handle it is to tell - and repeat - what his personal stance is concerning race relations, and to simply dismiss as irrelevant attacks trying to paint him as a religious racist. And they are, after all, irrelevant to what he will do as a politician.

Interestingly enough, Romney has been very consistent in his views concerning race relations. There's really nothing to hide, there, from his personal standpoint. On the other hand, Obama still has a great deal to explain about why he personally was involved with the Reverend Jeremiah for all those many years. His previous "explanations" on the subject in 2008 were hardly satisfying, but then again the media wasn't interested in making him look bad.

If I were personally attacked as a member of the Church, I think that Pahoran's explanation is an appropriate way to dismiss the "problem". The ban ended almost 34 years ago, it's over, the Church has clearly articulated its stance against racism, so it's a non-issue.

[Pahoran]

If you weren't referring to me then I misunderstood. I apologize. But regardless of who you were referring to, a line was crossed.

Thank you Nanny.

Can you not see the difference between Situation A (families in darkness because the gospel as not reached them) and Situation B (families who have embraced the gospel and are told "sorry, no sealing for you until all the white people have a chance") ?? The first is a due to our limited resources and efforts. The second is a needless exclusion that serves no purpose.

And the bottom line differs -- how, exactly?

Your own logic shows that people were deprived. When Father wants to give a family "billions" but his servants limit the family to "millions", by definition they are deprived of most of what Father intends.

Your analogy assumes that the Priesthood Ban was a conscious decision taken at the initiative of the servants. Since that has not been established as a fact, your argument is moot.

I personally know of the great value of the temple and sealing ordinances. Thus I know of the great blessings that were deprived to these families. I think you do to.

As you ramble on through life, brother,

Whatever be your goal,

Completely ignore the doughnut,

But meticulously measure the hole.

With apologies to whomever wrote the original.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Even were I to believe people then or now are somehow owed an apology from the Church (I don't--the notion strikes me as patently absurd), I am of the opinion that it is remarkably naive to think that an apology would appease the race-baiters and make life better for one and all.

This is because for the race-baiters, it really isn't about improving race relations, healing, or even about race itself. Instead, it is about manipulation--inciting the "useful idiots" to their advantage, whipping the public into an emotional frenzy so as to gain attention, curry sympathy, damage their opponents, thus leveraging their political clout. It is all about propaganda and politics. Simple as that.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

[Pahoran]

Ohhh but it does!

No. It does not.

an das a fact!

Your spelling is getting worse. The correct spelling should be "an das a i-n-t-e-n-t-i-o-n-a-l f-a-l-s-e-h-o-o-d."

You really enjoy sowing discord, don't you?

Not only was I not responding to the Most Righteous Buckeye, I didn't even have his post in mind when I wrote it.

Go on Senator; call me a liar.

You know you want to.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran you have had repeated warnings to tone it down. The next time won't just be a thread ban.

[Senator]

Thank you Nanny.

And you whine and cry over how the orthodox defenders are getting spanked?

Amazing!

[Senator]

You really enjoy sowing discord, don't you?

Now that's amusingly ironic.

Most Righteous Buckeye

There you go again!

Go on Senator; call me a liar.

You know you want to.

Liar is not what I was thinking of.

[wenglund]

It's a favorite slight of hand trick. It goes somethin like this:

A poster makes a comment

A respondant responds with disdain for the comment. He/she then proceeds to say something to the affect as "it's astonishing how certain people have <insert any number of moral failings> and are on the road to apostacy.

The initial poster then calls the respondant on a personal invective.

The respondant then says, "What makes you think I was speaking about you"

Actually, I think you just indirectly described how certain readers jump to false conclusions, and rather than graciously accept the authors clarification, they cling to their false conclusion nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Huh?

"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

From the church news room.

http://www.mormonnew...cle/race-church

The church condemned racism by individuals, but did not condemn its institutional policy of racial discrimination.

[Cobalt-70]

In what way does it influence his policy positions?

In what way is it likely to influence his possible future decisions?

If you were an African American, would you trust someone to promote non-discriminatory policies who believes that God sometimes discriminates against people because of the color of their skin?

[jwhitlock]

If you were an African American, would you trust someone to promote non-discriminatory policies who believes that God sometimes discriminates against people because of the color of their skin?

Evidently they did; an overwhelming majority of African Americans voted for Obama.