What Is It About White Men?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Well frankly I find statements like this one to be simply a thinly veiled racist statement that "People from the British Isles are the best, and God loves them the most".

 

Like I stated earlier, my views are not of the racial superiority variety. Mine have to to with responsibilities and duties- not with any one race being better then another.

My wife is part Cherokee, I have mixed race nieces, and recently worshiped with a "black church" in the area where I felt the Spirit in abundance.

To basically be called a racist is offensive. And I am quickly determining you are a waste of time for any friendly, quality conversation

Edited March 29, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[BookofMormonLuvr]

One of the worst things we have done is, instead of allowing traditional worship styles and songs, and maybe even learning from converts, we have handed them the Hymnal (filled with old European hymns) alongside the Scriptures and said "These are the songs we sing."

What a disservice to them and a missed opportunity for us.

[mfbukowski]

Like I stated earlier, my views are not of the racial superiority variety. Mine have to to with responsibilities and duties- not with any one race being better then another.

My wife is part Cherokee, I have mixed race nieces, and recently worshiped with a "black church" in the area where I felt the Spirit in abundance.

To basically be called a racist is offensive. And I am quickly determining you are a waste of time for any friendly, quality conversation

Quality is one thing, friendly is another. 

 

So Ephraim has more "responsibilities and duties?"  Why is that?  Because God loves them more?

 

I tend not to be friendly to critics of the church, inside or out.  (Yes I know you are out)

 

Perhaps I need to get better, but I don't think there is such thing as a "friendly discussion" which is also critical to the church, on a Mormon board.  Yes the church is not perfect, but neither are any others.  It is not likely I will listen to criticism of the church and not respond with strength.  Perhaps I should not.

 

But heck it's "just the way I am". 

Edited March 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Like I stated earlier, my views are not of the racial superiority variety. Mine have to to with responsibilities and duties- not with any one race being better then another.

 

Uh huh.

 

Like this:

 

 

One reason the "white men" have traditionally held higher offices in the restored church at large is because they are generally of Ephraim (western European, specifically British/Celtic descent). Ephraim, being the birthright tribe of Israel, has the "big-brother"/leadership role over the other tribes. (D&C 133)

I'm sure glad I'm not a little brother.  I get to be boss. 

 

Nothing racist there, right?  Some people are just born to take care of the poor and ignorant.  Yessirree  And all those folks come from Western Europe and the British Isles.

 

Nope nothing racist there at all, right?

Edited March 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Quality is one thing, friendly is another. 

 

So Ephraim has more "responsibilities and duties?"  Why is that?  Because God loves them more?

 

I tend not to be friendly to critics of the church, inside or out.  (Yes I know you are out)

 

Perhaps I need to get better, but I don't think there is such thing as a "friendly discussion" which is also critical to the church, on a Mormon board.  Yes the church is not perfect, but neither are any others.  It is not likely I will listen to criticism of the church and not respond with strength.  Perhaps I should not.

 

But heck it's "just the way I am". 

First, I am not a "critic of the church". As I have pointed out numerous times, I apply these critiques to all churches of the Restoration. IMO, all have fallen down in various degrees in reference to the things I am talking about.

Second, Ephraim has those duties because it is the birthright responsibility, not because God loves them more. It is what God has preordained. Do you not believe in preordination to certain responsibilities?

Third, you are not defending the church "with strength", you are just being a jerk- which makes neither you nor the church look good.

Fourth, if it is "just the way you are"- you might want to contemplate some changes.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Uh huh.

 

Like this:

 

 

I'm sure glad I'm not a little brother.  I get to be boss. 

 

Nothing racist there, right?  Some people are just born to take care of the poor and ignorant.  Yessirree  And all those folks come from Western Europe and the British Isles.

 

Nope nothing racist there at all, right?

It's not about "being boss", and anyone who would see themselves that way is an unqualified leader.

There is a Seventy of our Branch of the restored church from Kenya who I feel inspired will  be an Apostle someday, when YAH sees fit to further order us again. I will be the first to raise my hand and testify of his calling.

But, yes, I am a raging racist. You caught me.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The fact that you believe birthright duties are about "being boss" make speak more to your personality than to anything else.

[mfbukowski]

First, I am not a "critic of the church". As I have pointed out numerous times, I apply these critiques to all churches of the Restoration. IMO, all have fallen down in various degrees in reference to the things I am talking about.

Criticizing all equally does not disqualify you as a "critic"

 

Second, Ephraim has those duties because it is the birthright responsibility, not because God loves them more. It is what God has preordained. Do you not believe in preordination to certain responsibilities?

LOL. Of course. That used to be a justification of slavery. Yes I believe in preordination, AS INDIVIDUALS not as races.

 

Third, you are not defending the church "with strength", you are just being a jerk- which makes neither you nor the church look good.

Jerk- guilty as charged. Making the church look bad? If someone doesn't know that jerks are in every church they are fools. And yes, as I said earlier I am working on it.

Fourth, if it is "just the way you are"- you might want to contemplate some changes.

Agreed, but that was a joke for another poster here who said that he was "just a smart alec".

As for "mocking," please understand that this is simply my way.

Edited March 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Criticizing all equally does not disqualify you as a "critic"

LOL. Of course. That used to be a justification of slavery. Yes I believe in preordination, AS INDIVIDUALS not as races.

Jerk- guilty as charged. Making the church look bad? If someone doesn't know that jerks are in every church they are fools. And yes, as I said earlier I am working on it.

Agreed, but that was a joke for another poster here who said that he was "just a smart alec".

I think I am through discussing with you. You continue to charge me as a racist, which shows a total disinterest on your part to actually read what I have written or understand what I am saying. A bid you adieu.

[mfbukowski]

The fact that you believe birthright duties are about "being boss" make speak more to your personality than to anything else.

Yep. Got it right.

I do not believe in birth right responsibilities. I believe that everyone has responsibilities to take care of everyone and birth order has nothing to do with it.

And certainly inherited birth order of someone who lived thousands of years ago just doesn't work at all, any more than we being punished for Adam's sin.

If we are not punished for Adam's sin- why should we have responsibilities for others because of Ephraim's birth order?

[mfbukowski]

I think I am through discussing with you. You continue to charge me as a racist, which shows a total disinterest on your part to actually read what I have written or understand what I am saying. A bid you adieu.

Well it appears I am not the only one, but I love your Book of Mormon quote.

[mormonnewb]

I believe that the Ethiopian Jews have a traditional story that makes them actual descendants of the 12 tribes.  So I think that would mean that they are Jews by virtue of race and not by covenant.

Just so I understand. The Ethiopian Jews are actually "white" but NONE of them could have been ordained into our priesthood prior to 1978? Or is it the case that they started out white (and delightsome) and then, at some point, made the turn to blackness (and thus, being expelled from the priesthood)? Or is there some other way that these "white" Jews now look so darn black?

P.S, For now, I will entertain the fiction that ANY of these Middle Eastern people were white.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Just so I understand. The Ethiopian Jews are actually "white" but NONE of them could have been ordained into our priesthood prior to 1978? Or is it the case that they started out white (and delightsome) and then, at some point, made the turn to blackness (and thus, being expelled from the priesthood)? Or is there some other way that these "white" Jews now look so darn black?

P.S, For now, I will entertain the fiction that ANY of these Middle Eastern people were white.

I think it was the  "negroid" African descent that barred them from LDS Priesthood, not the color of their skin. I believe Polynesians and some other "black"(ish) group could hold the Priesthood.

I know the Fundamentalist church I am most familiar with will ordain Polynesians, Aborigines, and strangely enough Pygmies, just not "African" blacks.

[rodheadlee]

Yep. Got it right.

I do not believe in birth right responsibilities. I believe that everyone has responsibilities to take care of everyone and birth order has nothing to do with it.

And certainly inherited birth order of someone who lived thousands of years ago just doesn't work at all, any more than we being punished for Adam's sin.

If we are not punished for Adam's sin- why should we have responsibilities for others because of Ephraim's birth order?

Then why can anyone who can show they are of the lineage of Aaron claim the Aaronic Priesthood? The birthright blessings are not about race, they are a type of Patriarchal Blessings.

[Gervin]

i havent read a single post but just wanted to say that this the best topic heading I've seen in a while.  carry on

[webbles]

Just so I understand. The Ethiopian Jews are actually "white" but NONE of them could have been ordained into our priesthood prior to 1978? Or is it the case that they started out white (and delightsome) and then, at some point, made the turn to blackness (and thus, being expelled from the priesthood)? Or is there some other way that these "white" Jews now look so darn black?

P.S, For now, I will entertain the fiction that ANY of these Middle Eastern people were white.

How does my answer say that they are "white"?  I was just pointing out that I believe they have a tradition that has them as descendants of the tribes of Israel.  And for those that believe that tradition, it would mean that they are Jews by virtue of race.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pope St. Victor I was our first Pontiff from Africa.  He reigned from 186-197 and is most famous for deciding authoritatively on the controversy over when to celebrate Easter.

 

So, let's pause for a moment this year on April 20th and remember that we are celebrating Easter on that particular day because of an African Pope from the second century

It was always during the Passover.

[BCSpace]

This is a sincere question. What is it about SOME white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others? Even 35+ years after the end of the priesthood ban, according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban, thus, intentionally placing all black saints under the priesthood authority of their white brothers.

 

How does that equate to white men thinking they are privileged by God to exercise authority over others?  The Church itself places the ban at the level of Divine inspiration and in no way does the doctrine on it say anything about privilege as you put it.

 

In addition, how do you know the colors, backgrounds, and cultures of those participating in the poll?  I know several black LDS persons who would answer the questions of the ban in the same way I do, one of them a former missionary companion.

Edited March 30, 2014 by BCSpace

[Stone holm]

First, I am not a "critic of the church". As I have pointed out numerous times, I apply these critiques to all churches of the Restoration. IMO, all have fallen down in various degrees in reference to the things I am talking about.

Second, Ephraim has those duties because it is the birthright responsibility, not because God loves them more. It is what God has preordained. Do you not believe in preordination to certain responsibilities?

Third, you are not defending the church "with strength", you are just being a jerk- which makes neither you nor the church look good.

Fourth, if it is "just the way you are"- you might want to contemplate some changes.

I don't think preordination means the same to you as we normally take it to mean. To us it is somewhat meaningless because any worthy male is eligible and if you have it then you were preordained to have it, but no one was preordained not to have it. That would be inconsistent with our current doctrine.

[mormonnewb]

How does that equate to white men thinking they are privileged by God to exercise authority over others?  The Church itself places the ban at the level of Divine inspiration and in no way does the doctrine on it say anything about privilege as you put it.

 

In addition, how do you know the colors, backgrounds, and cultures of those participating in the poll?  I know several black LDS persons who would answer the questions of the ban in the same way I do, one of them a former missionary companion.

I don't know the races of the posters, but I strongly suspect that there isn't another black man currently active on this board. If so, I'd love to hear from him. Holler at your boy! (By PM, if you're on the down low or as my grandmother would say, "trying to pass").

As for KNOWING how your black LDS friends believe about the issue, let me just suggest that black people aren't ALWAYS outspoken with whites about how we feel about discrimination. Until fairly recently, candor in such matters could get one KILLED. And given that our Mormon culture doesn't encourage dissent from ANYONE, it's POSSIBLE that they might not have felt free to "let their Afros down" in your presence.

That being said, I freely admit that I was wrong to suggest that white men are alone in their ability to assume a privileged status. It appears to be a trait common to everyone.

[Truth 101]

This is a sincere question. What is it about SOME white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others? Even 35+ years after the end of the priesthood ban, according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban, thus, intentionally placing all black saints under the priesthood authority of their white brothers.

Fortunately, our Church has moved beyond a race-based hegemony (at least, officially), but our patriarchy is alive and well. For most men in the church, it is not even curious that HF rests more ecclesiastical authority in a typical 12 yo BOY than in the most devout woman in the church.

 

[in light of further reflection and comments from posters, I want to modify my position SLIGHTLY as follows:

 

Now, I know that some of you will see this question as being racist and sexist, and I admit that it is.  It assumes that this phenomenon is unique to white men, when it probably would affect ANY group that had established economic/political/social dominance for centuries.  It's entirely likely that a group of left-handed, lesbian, albino Eskimos would began to feel that they were the "chosen people" had if they established dominance over a sustained period of time.   However, since white male hegemony is the current paradigm, I'll continue the rest of this post using the term "white men" as shorthand to denote the current dominant group.]

 

So while this mindset isn't likely one that you share, why is it that so many white men are so comfortable with a concept of God that ALWAYS privileges them?   And why are some of them offended by the idea that others might not accept that God likes them best?  Why do they assume that others should be comfortable with a subjugation that they NEVER experience for themselves?

Don't they at least find it coincidental that "God's will" is ALWAYS for some other group to be content under their righteous dominion? Is it at least POSSIBLE that God finds women and blacks as delightful as He finds white men? If so, then why don't they find it strange that HF is so reluctant to extend the power of the priesthood to anyone but white men, and only after years of agitation and turmoil (inside and outside of the Church)?

[Note to mods: This board is filled with generalized comments about how "gays" are attempting to "push their agenda" and how "women" are trying to "demand the priesthood from the Brethren." Is not acceptable to question why "white men" (who just currently happen to be the dominant group) seem to share a common mindset? If not, then perhaps I have the answer I seek.]

 

I have the answer. The LDS church isn't true and goes with whatever the current paradigm is. Once the civil rights movement got underway the church had no choice but to give blacks the priesthood, or be seen as even more of a cult. The LDS church leadership will always be dominated by white men, it's a sad fact. I mean I myself am white, but I believe in infinite diversity in infinite combinations. 

 

Just watch, if it gets serious enough to where people start leaving the church over it, they'll start giving women the priesthood. But I doubt it will ever get like that because the LDS church brainwashes and programs its members (especially the ones born into the church) to experience guilt when they shouldn't have to, it's a means of control. It's just one big manipulative incorporated religion, to put it simply.

 

And yes, it is ridiculous that a 12 year old boy technically has more "power" or "leadership" or whatever you want to call it, than the most devout mormon woman.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Truth 101

[thesometimesaint]

I have the answer. The LDS church isn't true and goes with whatever the current paradigm is. Once the civil rights movement got underway the church had no choice but to give blacks the priesthood, or be seen as even more of a cult. The LDS church leadership will always be dominated by white men, it's a sad fact. I mean I myself am white, but I believe in infinite diversity in infinite combinations. 

 

Just watch, if it gets serious enough to where people start leaving the church over it, they'll start giving women the priesthood. But I doubt it will ever get like that because the LDS church brainwashes and programs its members (especially the ones born into the church) to experience guilt when they shouldn't have to, it's a means of control. It's just one big manipulative incorporated religion, to put it simply.

 

And yes, it is ridiculous that a 12 year old boy technically has more "power" or "leadership" or whatever you want to call it, than the most devout mormon woman.

 

The Church is true. Blacks have been eligible for membership, the only thing that really matters, since the beginning of The Church. I'm Caucasian not white. The original Apostles were all Jews, and whatever their skin color was it probably wasn't white. Apparently so does God, as all his children come in almost infinite variations on the color brown.

 

Every study I've seen shows that the vast majority of LDS women have no desire for the added responsibilities of having the Priesthood.

 

All brainwashing employes sensory deprivation, the exact opposite of what the Church does. I  joined at age 20. None of my sibs or parents are members. Guilt rarely produces any long term change in behaviors. While a change of heart does.

 

You are very confused young man if you believe that holding the Priesthood does that.

[Calm]

Every study I've seen shows that the vast majority of LDS women have no desire for the added responsibilities of having the Priesthood.

 

Which reasoning I find strange in at least one sense given that we are told to desire all worthy things and to embrace growth and progression and for the most part willingly do so save for this one thing.  I have a feeling that if most women realized the implications of saying that, they would be changing how they approached the idea (not saying they would want ordination).

 

There are other reasons I don't feel the current need to be ordain, but not wanting more responsibility to serve God's family and my own isn't one of them.  Men can do their work with or without the added benefit of having the Priesthood to allow them to serve in the best way that they can, the Priesthood expands their capacity to serve more than it "adds responsibility" imo.  After all, one has important responsibilities as a father and member of the communities they are a part of even without the Priesthood.  Is father with the Priesthood an added responsibility to fatherhood without?  The Church teaches they can be better fathers and contributors with the Priesthood rather than without.  Why would women willingly not embrace something that would expand their capacities to fulfill responsibilities they already have?  If that was the only reason for not having it, I'd be demanding it as well to help make me a better servant.

[thesometimesaint]

Which reasoning I find strange in at least one sense given that we are told to desire all worthy things and to embrace growth and progression and for the most part willingly do so save for this one thing.  I have a feeling that if most women realized the implications of saying that, they would be changing how they approached the idea (not saying they would want ordination).

 

There are other reasons I don't feel the current need to be ordain, but not wanting more responsibility to serve God's family and my own isn't one of them.  Men can do their work with or without the added benefit of having the Priesthood to allow them to serve in the best way that they can, the Priesthood expands their capacity to serve more than it "adds responsibility" imo.  After all, one has important responsibilities as a father and member of the communities they are a part of even without the Priesthood.  Is father with the Priesthood an added responsibility to fatherhood without?  The Church teaches they can be better fathers and contributors with the Priesthood rather than without.  Why would women willingly not embrace something that would expand their capacities to fulfill responsibilities they already have?  If that was the only reason for not having it, I'd be demanding it as well to help make me a better servant.

 

[mormonnewb]

I have the answer. The LDS church isn't true and goes with whatever the current paradigm is. Once the civil rights movement got underway the church had no choice but to give blacks the priesthood, or be seen as even more of a cult. The LDS church leadership will always be dominated by white men, it's a sad fact. I mean I myself am white, but I believe in infinite diversity in infinite combinations. 

 

Just watch, if it gets serious enough to where people start leaving the church over it, they'll start giving women the priesthood. But I doubt it will ever get like that because the LDS church brainwashes and programs its members (especially the ones born into the church) to experience guilt when they shouldn't have to, it's a means of control. It's just one big manipulative incorporated religion, to put it simply.

 

And yes, it is ridiculous that a 12 year old boy technically has more "power" or "leadership" or whatever you want to call it, than the most devout mormon woman.

Let me just say that I understand how you CURRENTLY feel about the Church. In your position, I'd be even more upset. In fact, I was just as upset after joining the Church and they had only "lied" to me for about six months. I would have been livid if I had been lied to my entire life. The thing is that I wasn't lied to; and likely, neither were you.

I'd be willing to bet my left arm (I'm right-handed) that your bishops, YM leaders and parents truly believe what they taught you. They never once got up in the morning and thought, "Time to tell Truth 101 some more lies." They taught you the "truth" as they know and as was taught to them. And this goes all the way up the line to those "evil white men" at the top. Pres. Monson is teaching the "truth" (as he believes it to be). In short, there are no villains in the Church attempting to brainwash people because, at worst, they are sincere people who are just sincerely WRONG.

And, as for the "truthiness" of the Church, you've learned at a much earlier age than most that reality is A LOT more complicated than the narratives we create to explain it. I agree that the Church is not wholly (or holy) good. To paraphrase my favorite apostle from a talk last October, "Mistakes have been made." Likewise, neither is the Church wholly evil. I'd be willing to bet my appendix (and gall bladder) that the very best people you know are Mormons. Your indignation about some of our past mistakes demonstrates clearly that you were raised by kind and loving parents who taught you the values of justice and compassion. Think about your childhood leaders. Are these men who cheated on their wives, beat their children and cheated on their taxes? Well, two out of three ain't bad.

Seriously, try to cut the people in the Church a little slack. At worst, "They know not what they do." Besides, the Church that produced YOU can't be all bad, can it?

Now, let's get back to accusing everyone of being racist and sexist!