What a wonderful event!

[Glenn101]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The ban didn't come from God. Blaming it on God is adding blaspheme on top of sin.

How do you know? B. Y. said that it came from God. So, hoe do you know thst it didn't.

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Glenn101

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

How do you know? B. Y. said that it came from God. So, hoe do you know thst it didn't.

 

Because:

• The underpinnings of the ban originated with US apologetics for slavery, predating the LDS church.
• The ban is based on ahistorical notions of of both priesthood and Canaanites
• Per the premises of the ban, all of "Ephraim" (most of the LDS church) would be disqualified for the priesthood. Ephraim had a "cursed" Egyptian mother
• All human beings have African ancestry, making the ban incoherent
• Most importantly, God is good and not evil

 

 

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The sin was unjustly discriminating against black people for more than a century.

Was it a sin when God commanded the church not to go to the gentiles? 

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Was it a sin when God commanded the church not to go to the gentiles? 

Anyone of any ethnicity could follow Jesus, from the very beginning. Don't make the mistake of thinking gentiles were a race. Any gentile could become Jewish.

[Glenn101]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

Because:

• 1 .The underpinnings of the ban originated with US apologetics for slavery, predating the LDS church.
• 2. The ban is based on ahistorical notions of of both priesthood and Canaanites
• 3. Per the premises of the ban, all of "Ephraim" (most of the LDS church) would be disqualified for the priesthood. Ephraim had a "cursed" Egyptian mother
• 4. All human beings have African ancestry, making the ban incoherent
• 5. Most importantly, God is good and not evil

 

 

1. Not determined. Believed by some.
2. Correction, beliefs in the reason for the ban were "based on ahistorical notions of of both priesthood and Canaanites"
3. Egyptian ruling classes changed many times during the centuries. Joseph's time is generally thought to be in the period of the Middle Kingdom. Not the same lineage
4. That is a rather simplistic perspective. (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/18/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-I.aspx) But we do believe that we do have one common set of parents.
5. Agreed that God is good and not evil. God is the one that sent the flood, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. If God was the originator of the ban, it was not evil. And that brings us back to Brigham Young's declaration.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Anyone of any ethnicity could follow Jesus, from the very beginning. Don't make the mistake of thinking gentiles were a race. Any gentile could become Jewish.

Matthew 15:

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Anyone of any ethnicity could follow Jesus, from the very beginning. Don't make the mistake of thinking gentiles were a race. Any gentile could become Jewish.

Any race could become members of the church is well. So what’s your point?

[Exiled]

On 6/1/2018 at 10:20 PM, rongo said:

I don't think the spoken thoughts or the event as a whole could have been better. Very impressed! 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-oaks-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

And yes, I'm glad that there wasn't any apology. I think President Oaks' strong emphasis on looking forward, and not navel-gazing about the past, is the best course for all of us to follow. 

What do you think it means to look forward? Does it mean we shouldn't talk about the ban any more or the reasons behind it? Judging from the reactions to the recent hoax by the "thoughts on things and stuff" guy, I think more needs to be discussed.

[Tacenda]

I would have much rather watched a sit down conversation amongst the blacks and the leaders. This was really kind of over the top for me but did like some of the entertainers, and I liked the true stories. But it seemed too choreographed or controlled. Of course that needs to happen for a production like this. 

Why does the church always have the color coordinated outfits, such as like the Tabernacle Choir wear or the RS presidencies wear in church photos? I guess that is someone in the department making these decisions. 

I did love most of it, but felt it ironic when showing the black families dancing and stories done in dance. It portrayed something akin to separation at points. And interesting that our church did prevent eternal marriage and families to be together by prohibiting them from the temple all those years.

Loved the choir singing when Gladys Knight came out. We need to work on having more of this in our Sacrament singing time. We can learn a lot from the African Americans. They sure do love their God/Jesus and show it in their singing. 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

... I did love most of it, but felt it ironic when showing the black families dancing and stories done in dance. It protrayed something akin to separation at points. And interesting that our church did prevent eternal marriage and families to be together by prohibiting them from the temple all those years. ...

What families have been barred from receiving eternal ordinances, if not here then in the hereafter, Tacenda?  It's interesting to me that when it is reported that ordinances were performed vicariously for some nefarious figure in history, the response of the naysayers is, Quelle Horreur!, yet when it is pointed out that those worthy and desiring of such ordinances may receive them, if not in this life, then in the next, the response of those very same naysayers is, "B... Bu... But, the Cruel, Mean, Cold, Heartless, Calloused Church of Jesus Christ is denying salvation to people!"  

Those two positions don't seem very consistent with one another, but perhaps I simply lack the logical erudition to understand their coherence.

 

 

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What families have been barred from receiving eternal ordinances, if not here then in the hereafter, Tacenda?  It's interesting to me that when it is reported that ordinances were performed vicariously for some nefarious figure in history, the response of the naysayers is, Quelle Horreur!, yet when it is pointed out that those worthy and desiring of such ordinances may receive them, if not in this life, then in the next, the response of those very same naysayers is, "B... Bu... But, the Cruel, Mean, Cold, Heartless, Calloused Church of Jesus Christ is denying salvation to people!"  

Those two positions don't seem very consistent with one another, but perhaps I simply lack the logical erudition to understand their coherence.

 

 

At the end when President Nelson speaks about everyone being allowed to come unto God.. black, white, male,female... all are equal.  The elephant in the room are the LGBTQ children.

Part of Pres. Nelson's concluding remarks:

“Differences in culture, language, gender, race, and nationality fade into insignificance as the faithful enter the covenant path and come unto our beloved Redeemer,” he said. “[May we] overcome any burdens of prejudice and walk uprightly with God — and with one another — in perfect peace and equity.”

Edited June 3, 2018 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

At the end when President Nelson speaks about everyone being allowed to come unto God.. black, white, male,female... all are equal.  The elephant in the room are the LGBTQ children.

😒

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

At the end when President Nelson speaks about everyone being allowed to come unto God.. black, white, male,female... all are equal.  The elephant in the room are the LGBTQ children.

Part of Pres. Nelson's concluding remarks:

“Differences in culture, language, gender, race, and nationality fade into insignificance as the faithful enter the covenant path and come unto our beloved Redeemer,” he said. “[May we] overcome any burdens of prejudice and walk uprightly with God — and with one another — in perfect peace and equity.”

OK, I suppose I can ask the question again, since you might've missed it the first time: Who, either in this life or in the next, is being denied saving ordinances?

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Matthew 15:

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Anyone could be of the house of Israel by converting to Judaism.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Any race could become members of the church is well. So what’s your point?

LDS missionaries avoided teaching black people, and black people could not fully participate for more than 100 years.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

1. Not determined. Believed by some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Black_Africans_as_descendants_of_Canaan

"During the Atlantic slave trade, many Christians began teaching that black Africans were descendants of Canaan and used the Curse of Ham to justify enslaving black Africans.[73][74]"

 

 

Quote

2. Correction, beliefs in the reason for the ban were "based on ahistorical notions of of both priesthood and Canaanites"

Indeed, but the ban came about because of such beliefs.

 

Quote

3. Egyptian ruling classes changed many times during the centuries. Joseph's time is generally thought to be in the period of the Middle Kingdom. Not the same lineage

 

The BOA doesn't make any distinction like that, but proposed alternatives I've heard don't fit with Joseph's alleged time.

 

Quote

4. That is a rather simplistic perspective. (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/18/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-I.aspx) But we do believe that we do have one common set of parents.

It's bedrock. Homo sapiens originated in Africa.

 

Quote

5. Agreed that God is good and not evil. God is the one that sent the flood, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. If God was the originator of the ban, it was not evil. And that brings us back to Brigham Young's declaration.

God doesn't send floods or destroy cities. God is good, not evil..

Edited June 3, 2018 by Gray

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Anyone could be of the house of Israel by converting to Judaism.

Not true. There were limits for certain nations - some had to wait up to ten generations to become part of the congregation. Under the Mosaic law an Egyptian wasn't part of the congregation until after 3 generations of marrying an Hebrew. 

Further, none could be a priest except for Levites until the high priest became an appointed office of the Romans (and possibly the Seleucids). 

[Avatar4321]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

LDS missionaries avoided teaching black people, and black people could not fully participate for more than 100 years.

And yet all could join the Church.

Israelites avoided teaching gentiles for thousands of years and even when they joined priesthood was limited to the levites

 

[Avatar4321]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan#Black_Africans_as_descendants_of_Canaan

"During the Atlantic slave trade, many Christians began teaching that black Africans were descendants of Canaan and used the Curse of Ham to justify enslaving black Africans.[73][74]"

 

 

Indeed, but the ban came about because of such beliefs.

 

The BOA doesn't make any distinction like that, but proposed alternatives I've heard don't fit with Joseph's alleged time.

 

It's bedrock. Homo sapiens originated in Africa.

 

God doesn't send floods or destroy cities. God is good, not evil..

God doesn't destroy the wicked? Since when?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What families have been barred from receiving eternal ordinances, if not here then in the hereafter, Tacenda?  It's interesting to me that when it is reported that ordinances were performed vicariously for some nefarious figure in history, the response of the naysayers is, Quelle Horreur!, yet when it is pointed out that those worthy and desiring of such ordinances may receive them, if not in this life, then in the next, the response of those very same naysayers is, "B... Bu... But, the Cruel, Mean, Cold, Heartless, Calloused Church of Jesus Christ is denying salvation to people!"  

Those two positions don't seem very consistent with one another, but perhaps I simply lack the logical erudition to understand their coherence.

 

 

Basically what you are saying is that temple ordinances and holding the priesthood in this life is unimportant.  Perhaps you are right.  But then, what is the purpose of even having the church restored? Maybe that is not important as well since such a very small percent of one percent of the worlds population will ever be members.  Whatever is required to do to enter the kingdom of God can all be done in the millennia reign of Christ.

[Storm Rider]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:37 AM, Marginal Gains said:

“Dear brothers and sisters, we have been uplifted by the message of President Oaks and by wonderful musicians and dancers. We are especially grateful for Gladys Knight, the Be One Choir, Alex Boyé, and the Bonner family. These talented performers have inspired us all.”

Arranging for Black people to perform in front of the unapologetic White Church leaders as a celebration of the end of a racial ban is a symbolism that I find jarring.

What is worse, is that Black people were performing in front of God - the horror still gives me shivers and shakes. I am just thrilled that other people can find something to complain about; it is just inspiring!!!  Thank you so much for speaking up.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Anyone could be of the house of Israel by converting to Judaism.

We are not talking about Judaism. We are talking about the church Christ established as part of the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Read the rst of the words that Christ spoke.

 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

God doesn't send floods or destroy cities. God is good, not evil..

I take it you do not accept the Biblical accounts then. Then where do you get the idea of God being good?

Sincere question, do you believe in the restoration of the Gospel and that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the instrument of that restoration?

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/2/2018 at 12:37 AM, Marginal Gains said:

“Dear brothers and sisters, we have been uplifted by the message of President Oaks and by wonderful musicians and dancers. We are especially grateful for Gladys Knight, the Be One Choir, Alex Boyé, and the Bonner family. These talented performers have inspired us all.”

Arranging for Black people to perform in front of the unapologetic White Church leaders as a celebration of the end of a racial ban is a symbolism that I find jarring.

Too bad you didn't bother to listen to Pres Oaks' remarks, and that you didn't bother to watch the actual show put on by Black members (including an honest assessment of the history of Black people in the LDS Church).  Had you done so, you might have made some marginal gains in actually understanding what has been happening within the LDS Church.  Since you did not, only your bigotry shows up here.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[CMZ]

On 6/2/2018 at 2:44 PM, Gray said:

Disappointing. The church continues to labor under this unrepented sin.

What would constitute repentance in your eyes? And if you got what you wanted would you be active in the Church?