The zealot defenders of blacks and the priesthood

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I'm glad that God doesn't punish men for other's transgressions anymore. It would have sucked to live back then.

Regarding this punishment for others' transgressions.

We most definitely are "punished" for Adam's trangression. How? Because we all are subject to death. If Adam hadn't transgressed, he wouldn't have been subject and neither would we. (Then again, we wouldn't be here to begin with.)

We are most definitely not ultimately punished for Adam's transgression because Christ died for all mankind that all of us will be resurrected.

Furthermore, the institution of infant baptism was based on the heretical notion that Adam's transgression caused children to be sinful and so they had to be baptized as soon as possible before they died or they would be doomed to Hell.


If you truly understand the Plan of Salvation, the lack of Melchizedek Priesthood for the Jews, priesthood for blacks and so on and so forth were and are not impediments standing in the way of their eternal salvation; they were merely restrictions on the blessings they could receive in this life and the level of participation they could have in God's church. There's an important difference between the two.

To invoke the 2nd Article of Faith is simply erroneous.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Woman can't hold the priesthood. Is God sexist?

There are immutable and fundamental differences between men and women. The Family: A Proclamation to the World states "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Distinctions based on real differences are not the sames as distinctions based on superficial differences. One is far more easily grappled with than the other.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Lamanites were cursed with a dark skin because of their wickedness and some of them had the cursing removed when they repented. Is God racist?

Did God leave that mark on their children and then decline to give the full blessings of the gospel to those children based upon their sinful parents? I may be wrong but I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

God didn't want the Gospel preached to the Gentiles for a long period of time. Is God racist?

This is another apple/orange comparison. That the Lord would desire to first convert his people before they borught the gospel to the world makes lots of sense. This is logistics, not racial distinctions.

We are plowing over old ground at this point. If you believe that this and all others changes and evolutions in the church are part of God's plan (which you may, and may well be right) then none of these questions have relevence for you. If you think that the church is led by inspired men who try their best to have the policies of the church relfect the will of God, but sometimes get it wrong, then it is legitimate to ask what might have caused them to get it wrong.

The funny thing is that an apology is getting mistaken for an attack. What casts the worse light on the church: (1) God through his prophets decreed, for reasons we don't know, that the full blessings of the gospel were to be witheld for the most superficial of reasons (read here race) OR (2) God is no respecter of persons and the leaders of His church, though they meant well, were products of their time with engrained assumptions about race, and when enough time had passed new leaders were prepared to recieve the corrective guidence then God gave it to them.

What you apparently view as an attack on God, is actually an attempt by many of us to harmonize our belief that God is perfect, just and no respecter of persons with this particular fact of our history. It is much easier for me to believe that men are imperfect than it is for me to believe that God gives apparently racist directives. I must concede that God could have reasons I don't know about, but until I learn them, this is the easiest way for me to assimilate all of this into my belief that the LDS church is the true one.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The opposing view would be "God doesn't run the church nearly as closely as some people think he does."

And this is the reason that I reject the "it was just a bunch of racist prophets" line of thought. It's not just that it leads to the inevitable impugning of the character of great men (even though it does do that), because they are fallible. Obviously they can make mistakes and it appears that at least a few of them did harbor those kinds of views.

No, instead my objection is that it must necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is not nearly so concerned with how his church is guided (or how his children are taught about its precepts) as we all thought. I reject that premise. I think it's out of harmony with what I read in the scriptures.

In the last thread on this topic, I quoted a statement from Boyd Packer that supports this view, and all I got a was a huffy Packer-doesn't-matter-to-me response in return.

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I think it's more tortured to accept that God had his whims and feels no need to explain than to accept that man is imperfect and that imperfection can stand in the way of God's designs on a temporary basis.

I firmly disagree. I think that's the whole point of Isaiah 55:8-9. Given American 20th century social mores, we choose to ignore the God of the Old Testament's behavior entirely, and instead insist that "my" God would be incapable of such racism.

EDIT: I should add, parenthetically, that I don't deny he might have allowed the racism of some men to influence the direction of the church. Those men are not automatons with God at the controls. But I don't think he was far removed from it ... he knew what their views would be before he ever put them on the earth, to say nothing of making them the head of his church. He must have accepted that denying the blacks the priesthood would be part of his new organization long before it actually happened.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Regarding this punishment for others' transgressions.

We most definitely are "punished" for Adam's trangression. How? Because we all are subject to death. If Adam hadn't transgressed, he wouldn't have been subject and neither would we. (Then again, we wouldn't be here to begin with.)

We are most definitely not ultimately punished for Adam's transgression because Christ died for all mankind that all of us will be resurrected.

Furthermore, the institution of infant baptism was based on the heretical notion that Adam's transgression cause children to be sinful and so they had to be baptized as soon as possible before they died or they would be doomed to Hell.


If you truly understand the Plan of Salvation, the lack of Melchizedek Priesthood for the Jews, priesthood for blacks and so on and so forth were and are not impediments standing in the way of their eternal salvation; they were merely restrictions on the blessings they could receive in this life and the level of participation they could have in God's church. There's an important difference between the two.

To invoke the 2nd Article of Faith is simply erroneous.

I can certainly understand the need to believe that God will make everything right in the next life. Whether or not that is erroneous, I'm not sure. I hope it's true though. I'll take fickle in this life for fairness in the next. If the scriptures are to be believed, it doesn't look good.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

And this is the reason that I reject the "it was just a bunch of racist prophets" line of thought. It's not just that it leads to the inevitable impugning of the character of great men (even though it does do that), because they are fallible. Obviously they can make mistakes and it appears that at least a few of them did harbor those kinds of views.

No, instead my objection is that it must necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is not nearly so concerned with how his church is guided (or how his children are taught about its precepts) as we all thought. I reject that premise. I think it's out of harmony with what I read in the scriptures.

In the last thread on this topic, I quoted a statement from Boyd Packer that supports this view, and all I got a was a huffy Packer-doesn't-matter-to-me response in return.



I firmly disagree. I think that's the whole point of Isaiah 55:8-9. Given American 20th century social mores, we choose to ignore the God of the Old Testament's behavior entirely, and instead insist that "my" God would be incapable of such racism.

EDIT: I should add, parenthetically, that I don't deny he might have allowed the racism of some men to influence the direction of the church. Those men are not automatons with God at the controls. But I don't think he was far removed from it ... he knew what their views would be before he ever put them on the earth, to say nothing of making them the head of his church. He must have accepted that denying the blacks the priesthood would be part of his new organization long before it actually happened.

You are making an assumption that one must accept that God isn't concerned with how his church is run if one accepts that the priesthood ban was racist.

We have been told countless times that God speaks through still and small voices, and rarely through booming thunder. It is entirely possible that God was trying to communicate to his prophets that blacks should receive the priesthood, but they weren't paying attention or were deafened by their own personal biases.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Men and women aren't equal. Women can have babies, men cannot, for starters.

Which sex is superior?

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Which sex is superior?

So many responses come to mind...lol

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are making an assumption that one must accept that God isn't concerned with how his church is run if one accepts that the priesthood ban was racist.

We have been told countless times that God speaks through still and small voices, and rarely through booming thunder. It is entirely possible that God was trying to communicate to his prophets that blacks should receive the priesthood, but they weren't paying attention or were deafened by their own personal biases.

Mmmm ... I'm not really making the assumption. Others have said it and I'm just repeating it.

On an intellectual level, I allow that your hypothesis is a plausible explanation. But as with the "God is passive" theory, I cannot accept it either. It doesn't seem consistent to me, especially in light of this (apocryphal?) story of McKay and his petitioning the Lord on the subject.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Which sex is superior?

Tantric?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmmm ... I'm not really making the assumption. Others have said it and I'm just repeating it.

On an intellectual level, I allow that your hypothesis is a plausible explanation. But as with the "God is passive" theory, I cannot accept it either. It doesn't seem consistent to me, especially in light of this (apocryphal?) story of McKay and his petitioning the Lord on the subject.

Not your assumption? Isn't that exactly what you are expressing here:

"No, instead my objection is that it must necessarily lead to the conclusion that God is not nearly so concerned with how his church is guided (or how his children are taught about its precepts) as we all thought. "

It NECESSARILY leads to the conclusion that God is not concerned with how the church is guided is a pretty strong phrasing for something you are repeating but don't believe.