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

[Zakuska]

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

Correct you are my mistake. My point however stands. Since the SBC didn't formally appologize for its doctrines of the curse of cain to justify slavery and segregation unto 2007ish should we hold Candidates to the flame like Newt Gingrich who before becoming Roman Cathlic was Southern Baptist?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Zakuska

[Areabird]

Correct you are my mistake. My point however stands. Since the SBC didn't formally appologize for its doctrines of the curse of cain to justify slavery and segregation unto 2007ish should we hold Candidates to the flame like Newt Gingrich who before becoming Roman Cathlic was Southern Baptist?

I forget. Is the Catholic church the one true church led by a modern day living prophet who receives guidance and inspiration directly from the Almighty? That is the big difference between us and them, right? And why we are held to a higher standard....

[Zakuska]

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.

Add macho-sexist to that list too.

[Zakuska]

I forget. Is the Catholic church the one true church led by a modern day living prophet who receives guidance and inspiration directly from the Almighty? That is the big difference between us and them, right? And why we are held to a higher standard....

Correct. However there is were the disconnect happens. Who was getting more revelations and inspiration from God, Peter or Paul? Yet we all have their documented power tussels (social warfare) to read about.

People seem to think that a Prophet some how gets his head ripped off and God pored in and is never able to make a human mistake from that day forward.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Zakuska

[Flyonthewall]

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]

I think that is a stretch. I don't see the harm in anything you stated. They were not denied baptism or the sacrament. Temple blessings were only temporarily withheld, they were never to be denied any blessing that any other person could have, depending on their faithfulness.

Officiating in preisthood ordinances is not what brings unity within the church. Love thy neighbor is, and there was no stipulation on who had the priesthood.

That line of thinking seems to have had the House of Israel damned from the very start since only one tribe out of 12 could hold the priesthood.

I'm just not seeing the harm. There was a postponement of blessings but never an out and out denial.

[Pahoran]

I forget. Is the Catholic church the one true church led by a modern day living prophet who receives guidance and inspiration directly from the Almighty? That is the big difference between us and them, right? And why we are held to a higher standard....

I don't know who are the "we" you are referring to, Areabird. But the only people who get to use those claims as a reason to hold "us" to a higher standard are those who actually accept those claims as being true. Anyone else trying to hold them over us is simply being a hypocrite.

And in the context of a public discussion about a candidate's religious views, we are not relying upon those claims.

As in, at all.

In that context, all religious traditions stand on equal grounds and those specific truth claims are off the table.

And so, All Mr Romney has to do if any dishonest race-baiters try to hang the Priesthood Ban around his neck (because after all, nobody else would) is to point out that the ban ended thirty-four (that's 34) years ago, and approximately thirty (that's 30) years before Mr Obama finally repudiated Rev. Wright's very vocal and considerably less benign racism.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Never mind...

Edited April 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

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.

Why would the Church need to change it's position, since it has never held that "Native Americans and Latinos are, or were, a cursed people?"

Rather, it has quite consistently regarded them as at least somewhat privileged.

Mind you, you'd probably need to have actually been an active Mormon at some time to know that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited April 12, 2012 by Pahoran

[Areabird]

I don't know who are the "we" you are referring to, Areabird. But the only people who get to use those claims as a reason to hold "us" to a higher standard are those who actually accept those claims as being true. Anyone else trying to hold them over us is simply being a hypocrite.

And in the context of a public discussion about a candidate's religious views, we are not relying upon those claims.

As in, at all.

In that context, all religious traditions stand on equal grounds and those specific truth claims are off the table.

And so, All Mr Romney has to do if any dishonest race-baiters try to hang the Priesthood Ban around his neck (because after all, nobody else would) is to point out that the ban ended thirty-four (that's 34) years ago, and approximately thirty (that's 30) years before Mr Obama finally repudiated Rev. Wright's very vocal and considerably less benign racism.

Regards,

Pahoran

Now that's a good one! I'd like to hear it used in one of the debates. Romney was last on my list of candidates I thought should win, but anyone is better than Obama.

[Stargazer]

He probably is the most electable of the Republican candidates. However I won't be voting for him, and it has nothing to do with his religion.

You have no idea how disheartening it is to me to read this..

[Stargazer]

That may be the case, but I wouldn't vote for you for President.

It would be hard to do so in any case. I don't think Z. is a US citizen. If I am not mistaken, he lives in the UK?

[Avatar4321]

Let the attacks come. The Church will be stronger because of it. And those who attack the Lord's Church and His Saints will feel the weight of the Lord against them.

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38)

[Stargazer]

Place is heating up.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Stargazer

[Avatar4321]

And yet the Church and members were so grateful and thankful when an apology from Illinois was received in 2004 for the atrocities in Nauvoo, some 160 years earlier:

http://www.deseretne...ticle/595052990

I hardly believe President Hinckley and the members found this apology "worthless".

Perhaps all I'm suggesting is the same level of empathy for the wrongs brought upon blacks for a similar historical look back. I can only believe it would have a similar healing that was brought by the Illinois apology.

I did. No meaning for an apology for something someone else did.

[zerinus]

It would be hard to do so in any case. I don't think Z. is a US citizen. If I am not mistaken, he lives in the UK?

I was describing a hypothetical situation, and he was giving it a hypothetical response. Not very impressed by his response though.

[Cobalt-70]

Correct you are my mistake. My point however stands. Since the SBC didn't formally appologize for its doctrines of the curse of cain to justify slavery and segregation unto 2007ish should we hold Candidates to the flame like Newt Gingrich who before becoming Roman Cathlic was Southern Baptist?

Reference to the SBC raises an interesting issue. In 1995 (not 2007), the SBC made an official policy to African Americans for its role in "condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systematic racism." Since it did so, the issue has essentially gone away. In fact, there has been a recent surge of black SBC members. Despite its racist roots, I understand the SBC now has about a million African American members. Part of this has to be attributed to its 1995 apology. (There was a minor 2007 announcement on the 150th anniversary of the Dred Scott decision, renouncing that decision, but the SBC was not actually responsible for Dred Scott.)

The LDS Church doesn't have as much to apologize about as the SBC. Unlike the SBC, the LDS Church because of its isolation in Utah had only a very minimal role in justifying and perpetuating slavery and racism. So the LDS Church could probably get away without an apology at all, so long as it renounces its position that its discriminatory priesthood ban reflected the will of God.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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.

We'll see what happens. As a result of Citizens United, this is going to be one of the most nasty races in U.S. history. Unlimited corporate money will be spent on TV attack ads, and neither Obama nor Romney will (at least legally) be able to reign in the attack dogs. I'm certain there will be religious filth flung from both sides.

[zerinus]

We'll see what happens. As a result of Citizens United, this is going to be one of the most nasty races in U.S. history. Unlimited corporate money will be spent on TV attack ads, and neither Obama nor Romney will (at least legally) be able to reign in the attack dogs. I'm certain there will be religious filth flung from both sides.

That is your strongest wish, apparently; but I fear you will be disappointed.

[Cobalt-70]

Why would the Church need to change it's position, since it has never held that "Native Americans and Latinos are, or were, a cursed people?"

Except in 2 Nephi 5:21, 24, where it says, "And he [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity....[W]herefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them....And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

If I could take a red pen and excise any part of the LDS scriptures, it would probably be that passage. There is precedent for the LDS Church amending the Book of Mormon on issues of race, it did in 2 Nephi 30:6. Perhaps when Joseph Smith made this change in 1840, he was beginning to have second thoughts about the Book of Mormon's Native American racial theory.

[NobodyFamous]

I think that is a stretch. I don't see the harm in anything you stated. They were not denied baptism or the sacrament. Temple blessings were only temporarily withheld, they were never to be denied any blessing that any other person could have, depending on their faithfulness.

Officiating in preisthood ordinances is not what brings unity within the church. Love thy neighbor is, and there was no stipulation on who had the priesthood.

That line of thinking seems to have had the House of Israel damned from the very start since only one tribe out of 12 could hold the priesthood.

I'm just not seeing the harm. There was a postponement of blessings but never an out and out denial.

Reading this thread, I've become convinced that church leaders should seriously consider an outright repudiation of the priesthood/temple ban; not for the sake of Romney or African-American members but for the sake of its more faithful white members. Even though, the church has repeatedly counseled us to disregard its past teachings regarding valiancy in the pre-existence, the curse of Ham, etc., they keep popping up in this thread and others. And even if we're able to move beyond those explanations, the necessity to defend President Young and others requires the postulation of equally offensive theories, such as the theory recently proffered by our dear brother, Professor Botts, that Heavenly Father withheld the priesthood from blacks because we weren't "ready for it." In that same vain, FlyontheWall postulates that blacks suffered no harm in being denied temple ordinances -- the same ordinances to which most faithful members ascribe sacred meaning and infinite worth. How could denial of these blessings be of no consequence? If they hold no earthly value, then why have saints endured hardships and even death in order to reach the temple?

And here is the real problem with justifying the ban, it either reinforces racist stereotypes or it creates callousness towards racial discrimination. After all, if Heavenly Father discriminated on the basis of race, then He either had a very good reason for doing so and/or discrimination isn't all that harmful. I don't see how either one of these attitudes helps to foster the "Love thy neighbor" ethic that is at the heart of our gospel. If God distinguishes between His children not on the basis of their character (i.e., keeping the commandments) but rather on the basis of their skin, how can any of us be expected to do otherwise?

[Calm]

How could denial of these blessings be of no consequence? If they hold no earthly value, then why have saints endured hardships and even death in order to reach the temple?

Our leaders are often telling stories of less advantage Saints who scrimp to save money, who go without the luxuries and even many times what more affluent members would consider necessities in order to save up enough to attend the temple to receive their endowments and the sealing ordinances.

There has been a fund set up so that more affluent members can donate so that those unable due to financial restrictions can attend.

Why would such stress be placed on how there is almost no sacrifice too great to be made in order to attend the temple to receive the ordinances only available there if receiving the blessings in the next life meant more or less the same thing?

That no one was denied blessings eternally is true, but I don't see how someone can say that any benefits received by those with the Priesthood are trivial and those who do not have the Priesthood need not concern themselves about it as they can receive the identical blessings without possessing the Priesthood or that the Priesthood is only beneficial for those it serves, etc.

That Abraham's story is opened in the Pearl of Great Price by his describing how he sought the blessing of the Priesthood for himself is a great indicator, imo, of the value of the Priesthood not only for others, but for the possessor himself as Abraham describes "greater happiness and peace and rest for me":

1 In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence;

2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

4 I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.

A "postponement" of blessings means that something is missing in people's lives right now that others can have, something that is seen as very important, even essential in the gospel and that makes a difference in an individual's life and in the lives of their family.

For example:

“If we live for it, ours can be a power given us from our Heavenly Father that will bring peace to a troubled household. Ours can be a power that will bless and comfort little children, that will bring sleep to tearstained eyes in the wee hours of the morning. Ours can be the power that will bring happiness to a family home evening, the power to calm the unsettled nerves of a tired wife. Ours can be the power that will give direction to a confused and vulnerable teenager. Ours, the power to bless a daughter before she goes on her first date or before her temple marriage, or to bless a son before his departure for a mission or college. Ours, my young brethren, can be the power to stop evil thoughts of a group of boys gathered together in vulgar conversation. Ours can be the power to heal the sick and comfort the lonely. These are some of the important purposes of the priesthood” (H. Burke Peterson, in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 50–51; or Ensign, May 1976, 33).

The priesthood can make a difference in our homes. President David O. McKay said, “A home is transformed because a man holds and honors the priesthood” (“Priesthood,” Instructor, Oct. 1968, 378).

You cannot reach your potential alone. You need the help of the Lord [referring to the Priesthood for men].” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 470).

Edited April 12, 2012 by calmoriah