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

[Senator]

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.

Here's where I say, "How have I jumped to false conclusions?"

And where you then say, " I wasn't refering to you"

[rodheadlee]

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?

I believe it was due to lineage, not skin color.

[Zakuska]

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?

Well lets see... Who was it that Jesus called a filthy dog not worthy of the crumbs that fell from his table?

God does indeed discriminate against people at times.

[Cobalt-70]

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?

The priesthood is not merely a privilege. It is a necessity for exaltation. Today, all worthy men may be ordained. From 1844-1978, otherwise worthy men were denied the priesthood merely because of the color of their skin. Most people find that fact at least a bit uncomfortable.

[Zakuska]

The priesthood is not merely a privilege. It is a necessity for exaltation. Today, all worthy men may be ordained. From 1844-1978, otherwise worthy men were denied the priesthood merely because of the color of their skin. Most people find that fact at least a bit uncomfortable.

No more "uncomfortable" than the period of time from 5000BC to 34AD that you conveniently swept under the rug.

Ezra 2:62

62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

I can see why you distance yourself from these "uncomfortable" things.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Zakuska

[Cobalt-70]

Even today, something like 99.9% of the world's population have no access to the Sealing ordinances at all....

Only because they are not Mormon or not worthy, not because they are Mormon, willing, and worthy, but have been discriminated against because of the color of their skin. You got to see this from the perspective of non-Mormons. The fact that this discrimination occurred is a big deal, and I think your justifications are a bit flippant.

[jwhitlock]

The priesthood is not merely a privilege. It is a necessity for exaltation. Today, all worthy men may be ordained. From 1844-1978, otherwise worthy men were denied the priesthood merely because of the color of their skin. Most people find that fact at least a bit uncomfortable.

Odd; I don't know of any women that hold the priesthood, and yet I'm not aware that they aren't heirs of exaltation. Perhaps you mean that men can only be exalted if they hold the priesthood in this life. Or perhaps you mean that the church had/has a doctrine that proxy ordinances would never be extended to all people. Or perhaps you mean that absolutely no blacks received the priesthood between 1844 and 1978.

Or perhaps your train of thought is just wrong.

[wenglund]

Here's where I say, "How have I jumped to false conclusions?"

And where you then say, " I wasn't referring to you"

No. I would say: "See what I mean?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Or perhaps your train of thought is just wrong.

Bingo.

Or, as usual, he is intent on missing the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I don't think it's so much an apology that is being called for. Rather, it is a renunciation of the ban--an acknowledgement that God not only is not, but never has been, the author of a policy that denies his priesthood to anyone based on the color of their skin.

[Cobalt-70]

Odd; I don't know of any women that hold the priesthood, and yet I'm not aware that they aren't heirs of exaltation. Perhaps you mean that men can only be exalted if they hold the priesthood in this life. Or perhaps you mean that the church had/has a doctrine that proxy ordinances would never be extended to all people. Or perhaps you mean that absolutely no blacks received the priesthood between 1844 and 1978.

That's a different issue, but women are indeed given the priesthood during the endowment ceremony, and they are even prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods (which some of them, in fact, do, if they work in the temple doing washings and anointings). Given the emphasis that Mormon leaders place on getting worthy people to the temple early and often, it seems odd to argue that it didn't really matter whether pre-1978 black people went to the temple if they could presumably get their work done in the next life.

[wenglund]

I don't think it's so much an apology that is being called for. Rather, it is a renunciation of the ban--an acknowledgement that God not only is not, but never has been, the author of a policy that denies his priesthood to anyone based on the color of their skin.

I have no doubt that were, for some inexplicable reason, an apology was to be given, this would be the excuse trotted out to justify the presumed continued dissatisfaction.

However, in my opinion, this, too, would be as much of a ruse as asking for an apology. Why? Because, to me, as previously explained, with the race-baiters it isn't about correcting alleged wrongs, or improving race relations, or making life better for one and all. It is about self-serving political manipulation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 12, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

I believe it was due to lineage, not skin color.

Not really. It was always about race. Melanesians were banned from the priesthood until 1958, and then the ban was limited to black people. Nobody actually traced your lineage to see if you were patrilineally descended from Cain or Caanan, which would have been impossible anyway. The only time that lineage might have come into play is if you were disqualified by having a black ancestor.

[jwhitlock]

That's a different issue, but women are indeed given the priesthood during the endowment ceremony, and they are even prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods (which some of them, in fact, do, if they work in the temple doing washings and anointings). Given the emphasis that Mormon leaders place on getting worthy people to the temple early and often, it seems odd to argue that it didn't really matter whether pre-1978 black people went to the temple if they could presumably get their work done in the next life.

Odd - and inaccurate - rationalizations. Odd also that you really didn't address what I posted. And very odd that you're putting arguments in my mouth.

The fact that the priesthood ban was very complex in how it related to the restored gospel defies the simplistic notion that the church needs to apologize for some kind of racism.

Of course, that won't stop the wolves from trying to nail Romney to the wall for alleged organizational racism - while giving Obama a free ride for his far more odious connections to the Most Reverend Wright. The media will love digging up various church members who think that it's only "fair" that the church apologize for something they rationalize as racism. Will they also demand that Obama apologize for Wright? Or is it too much to hope for that kind of consistency?

[Cobalt-70]

No more "uncomfortable" than the period of time from 5000BC to 34AD that you conveniently swept under the rug.

Ezra 2:62

62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

I can see why you distance yourself from these "uncomfortable" things.

A person on a patrilineal line from Aaron could be black, white, Arab, Persian, or Indian. Race had nothing to do with it.

[Zakuska]

A person on a patrilineal line from Aaron could be black, white, Arab, Persian, or Indian. Race had nothing to do with it.

And yet "blacks" who were not of African descent where never banned. Which would includ Arabs, Persians, Indians, Pacific islanders, Brazillians etc. etc. etc.

The ban was for those descedants of Ham in Egypt and Aftrica following the BOA. So your gripe holds little water.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Zakuska

[Cobalt-70]

Of course, that won't stop the wolves from trying to nail Romney to the wall for alleged organizational racism - while giving Obama a free ride for his far more odious connections to the Most Reverend Wright. The media will love digging up various church members who think that it's only "fair" that the church apologize for something they rationalize as racism. Will they also demand that Obama apologize for Wright? Or is it too much to hope for that kind of consistency?

We'll have to see how it turns out with Romney, but Obama did not by any means get a free ride. This issue haunted him until he finally resigned his membership in the church and personally renounced Wright. Plus, there are still people who think that Obama is Muslim. The same thing could happen with Romney, but I kind of doubt it. I don't think anybody from the left is going to press this too hard. There's not much to gain, given that 90% of African Americans are already with Obama.

The real hardball issue might be the "skin of blackness" issue, and Romney's views on whether Native Americans and Latinos are, or were, a cursed people. Latinos are a key voting constituency. But short of revising the Book of Mormon, it would be very difficult for the LDS Church to change its position on this.

[Cobalt-70]

And yet "blacks" who were not of African descent where never banned. Which would includ Arabs, Persians, Indians, Pacific Ilanders, Brazillians etc. etc. etc.

The ban was for those descedants of Ham. So your gripe holds little water.

But if this is your justification, then you are assuming that blacks are descendants of Ham. I thought that the LDS Church was disavowing that racist mythology in its latest statement.

[Zakuska]

The real hardball issue might be the "skin of blackness" issue, and Romney's views on whether Native Americans and Latinos are, or were, a cursed people. Latinos are a key voting constituency. But short of revising the Book of Mormon, it would be very difficult for the LDS Church to change its position on this.

And yet the ban wasn't on either group.

[Pahoran]

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?

Thanks for the softball question, Cobalt. If I was voting in an election and one of the candidates was a member of an organisation that, until thirty-four years ago, had not allowed people of my lineage to hold leadership positions, I would cast my vote based upon that candidate's actual current positions, as well as the actual current positions of the alternative candidates.

But if I saw nasty little agitators dishonestly exploiting that candidate's allegiance as an excuse for race-baiting, which I happen to regard as one of the more odious demagogical tactics of the Dirty Tricks Department, I'd tell them what I thought of them.

Any other questions?

Make no mistake here, Cobalt: there is no honest way to make the thirty-four years dead Priesthood ban a relevant issue for the Romney campaign. Those who are trying to tie the two things together are just opportunistically looking for something with which to bash the Church.

And I don't want you to wonder about whether I might be talking about you, Cobalt. Because I am.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Make no mistake here, Cobalt: there is no honest way to make the thirty-four years dead Priesthood ban a relevant issue for the Romney campaign. Those who are trying to tie the two things together are just opportunistically looking for something with which to bash the Church.

And I don't want you to wonder about whether I might be talking about you, Cobalt. Because I am.

Regards,

Pahoran

Only if we drop our double standards and tie Santorum to the racism of the SBC which didn't officially end until just a few short years ago. I won't hold my breath though.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Zakuska

[jwhitlock]

We'll have to see how it turns out with Romney, but Obama did not by any means get a free ride. This issue haunted him until he finally resigned his membership in the church and personally renounced Wright. Plus, there are still people who think that Obama is Muslim. The same thing could happen with Romney, but I kind of doubt it. I don't think anybody from the left is going to press this too hard. There's not much to gain, given that 90% of African Americans are already with Obama.

Obama did so with great reluctance, and I'm still not convinced that the ties have really been broken. The "haunting" Obama got from this issue was nothing compared to the attacks on Romney's religion that occurred in 2008.

I think you're mistaken about what the left is going to do. The extreme left has been in the political wilderness far too long to leave Obama's reelection to chance. As was demonstrated in 2008 with the Obama camp's attacks on Hillary Clinton, they're very willing to do anything needed to retain him in office. In my opinion, the church and its members are going to be openly demonized by them as a way of preying on the primitive and irrational emotions of many American voters.

The real hardball issue might be the "skin of blackness" issue, and Romney's views on whether Native Americans and Latinos are, or were, a cursed people. Latinos are a key voting constituency. But short of revising the Book of Mormon, it would be very difficult for the LDS Church to change its position on this.

The irony in all this is that they're going to try to crucify Romney for racism - when, as you noted, a very large number of people on the left vote for candidates solely on the basis of race. Just like Jeremiah Wright knew, it's really quite easy to demonize a white politician if you can make any kind of tenuous connection of racism to his religion. There are lots of non-thinking people who will buy into it. It's simply too enticing for the wolves to not use it - though it may well backfire on them. This is going to be very, very polarizing.

Lest anyone think that it hasn't already started, the Obama media wolves are already trying to tar Romney as having problems with women voters. They're going to try to use every wedge they possibly can, including casting Mormonism as something inherently racist and evil.

[jwhitlock]

Only if we drop our double standards and tie Santorum to the racism of the SBC which didn't officially end until just a few short years ago. I won't hold my breath though.

Santorum is Catholic. And he's also dropped out of the race, so he's no longer on the radar scope.

[Pahoran]

Only because they are not Mormon or not worthy, not because they are Mormon, willing, and worthy, but have been discriminated against because of the color of their skin. You got to see this from the perspective of non-Mormons. The fact that this discrimination occurred is a big deal, and I think your justifications are a bit flippant.

The fact that lots of organisations practiced "discrimination" of one sort or another is a yawn. Unscrupulous race-baiters try to make it into a big deal, though.

And I admit that, when dealing with people who are not discussing things in good faith, I tend to be somewhat flippant.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Only if we drop our double standards and tie Santorum to the racism of the SBC which didn't officially end until just a few short years ago. I won't hold my breath though.

Not to derail things, but isn't Santorum Catholic? And, didn't he already drop out of the presidential race?

(Oops...I just noticed that jwhitlock already addressed this)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 12, 2012 by wenglund