The zealot defenders of blacks and the priesthood

[MikeWaters]

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2681361

And I feel worse for those who

Author: Frustrated Coug
Date: May 10, 2007 - 10:14am
Category: Political discussion
Viewed 16 times

know nothing about what they speak of and feel the Lord doesn't mind criticizing His servants.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's Church. It is He who runs it. If you think something as vital as the privilege of holding and exercising the priesthood at its highest level being denied to any group of people is done for any other reason than the Lord commanded it to be so, then I feel sorry for you because clearly this delusion will lead to other areas in which you will be critical of the prophets.

I will grant you that to outsiders, it appears racist. However, my point is that for any member to publicly cast doubt on the intentions and motives of the Lord's annointed in order to gain the favor of the masses will find they have a lot to answer before the Bar of God.

I feel bad for these types. I know where they are coming from. You are trying to wrap your mind around the idea, with no direction or guidance from the prophet and apostles.

I think this is a case where common members of the church have stepped up and inserted an answer THAT MAKES SENSE, when no answer was forthcoming from the church.

This isn't about attacking the church, this is about helping that member that is really struggling with the issue and can't reconcile Jesus being a racist.

It's comforting to accept that view that Jesus is not in fact a racist. Fallible men, however, can be racists.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2681361



I feel bad for these types. I know where they are coming from. You are trying to wrap your mind around the idea, with no direction or guidance from the prophet and apostles.

I think this is a case where common members of the church have stepped up and inserted an answer THAT MAKES SENSE, when no answer was forthcoming from the church.

This isn't about attacking the church, this is about helping that member that is really struggling with the issue and can't reconcile Jesus being a racist.

It's comforting to accept that view that Jesus is not in fact a racist. Fallible men, however, can be racists.

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

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?

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

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

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?

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

First off, race is a man-made construct. It would be odd if God adopted this man-made construct as an eternal principle.

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

But I doubt you would argue that a black man is unequal to a white man. In fact, you would have a hard time even defining what a black man is. Which is part of what made the ban so ridiculous. Who is black? The one drop rule? What happens when you do your geneaology and discover that 4 generations back there was a black ancestor?

My personal belief is that no person in the BoM magically had their skin color change. It was metaphor, or represented a natural process--like intermarrying with indigenous peoples with darker skin.

The whole preaching to the gentiles thing--it's interesting that it did not even take one generation after Christ to start preaching to the gentiles. Do we have any record of a prophet praying to include blacks, but being denied?

I think we have some record of DOM approaching the subject but feeling it was not time. The reason being, in my mind, disharmony in the quorum.

If we are to believe this policy was of God, how do we say that, but at the same time argue that all the statements made by the prophets that justified it were wrong? This is ludicrous.

[Indy Coug]

I'm saying that on the surface, given our 21st century morality, there are certain things God has done or said that would be construed as <xxx>-ist by people who don't possess His divine perspective.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2681361



I feel bad for these types. I know where they are coming from. You are trying to wrap your mind around the idea, with no direction or guidance from the prophet and apostles.

I think this is a case where common members of the church have stepped up and inserted an answer THAT MAKES SENSE, when no answer was forthcoming from the church.

This isn't about attacking the church, this is about helping that member that is really struggling with the issue and can't reconcile Jesus being a racist.

It's comforting to accept that view that Jesus is not in fact a racist. Fallible men, however, can be racists.

How can you argue with his logic? Just so I won't be misunderstood, let me say that Waters' intelligence and moral discernment is in the stratosphere compared to this poster he quotes. But Waters is a voice in the wilderness, and the poster's diabolical logic really is irrefutable.

[MikeWaters]

The church's current position as far as I can tell, is that there is not one iota of doctrinal evidence for the ban.

They have instructed us to ignore all justification in the past.

That is a refutation of prophets and apostles.

But they don't take that next step, which is to say "it was a mistake."

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

How do you know that was God's intent and not a product of an Israelite sense of superiority over their Gentile neighbors? God intervened with Peter to take the message beyond Israel. Were Gentiles any less worth saving before the revelation?

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.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How can you argue with his logic? Just so I won't be misunderstood, let me say that Waters' intelligence and moral discernment is in the stratosphere compared to this poster he quotes. But Waters is a voice in the wilderness, and the poster's diabolical logic really is irrefutable.

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

We believe that God will provide course correction to prevent a catastrophe....but the church is run by fallible men (can I argue that it is run by some women too? Do those women GA-types do anything?).

How could a just God allow the Bishops of his true church to molest children? How could a Stake President, inspired by God, call that person to that position? Simply, because we are a lot more human that we like to admit.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

How do you know that was God's intent and not a product of an Israelite sense of superiority over their Gentile neighbors? God intervened with Peter to take the message beyond Israel. Were Gentiles any less worth saving before the revelation?

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.

The Jews lost the ability to hold the Melchizidek Priesthood for over 1,000 years because of a few bad apples out in the wilderness that had a bad smelting accident whilst Moses was off on a business trip.

They didn't receive any of the temple blessings as we currently understand them, at least in part because they didn't have the priesthood keys to administer in the ordinances thereof.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The Jews lost the ability to hold the Melchizidek Priesthood for over 1,000 years because of a few bad apples out in the wilderness that had a bad smelting accident whilst Moses was off on a business trip.

They didn't receive any of the temple blessings as we currently understand them, at least in part because they didn't have the priesthood keys to administer in the ordinances thereof.

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