So, who CAN hold the Priesthood...??

[miss taken]

When I first joined the church in the 70's we were told that the missionaries were to avoid prostelytising to people of colour. If they knocked, and the people were black, they were to politely take their leave.

This, of course changed a few years later.

It brings up some interesting issues though. What about, if we are quarter black or a tenth. Where did you draw the line? Are Asians also black? Aborigines? What about Cypriots, Native Americans and Greeks - they are pretty dark. Iranians, Iraqi's the list goes on.
Which race? All races who have olive skins, or just Africans? What about Libians, Morrocans, Ethiopians?

A priesthood holder in the ward had a patriarchal blessing, (he knew he had black ancestry) and was with-held from the priesthood, because he had the 'blood of cain' running through his veins.

As an avid genealogist.. where did that put other people of mixed parentage, and hey...the whole world has been mixing up the races by intermarriage for 1000's of years.

And if we all came from Lucy over in ~SA then our whole ancestry was once of colour...

So............... I think that the issue on the priesthood ban was a cultural imposition based on the circumstances of 19th century America, and I don't think that God in all his love and glory had a whole heap to do with it.

Cuture, culture, culture!!!

The other argument I heard in favour of God instituting this stuff in the church, was that Jesus preached only to the Jews, it wasn't his mission to preach or offer his organisation to any other culture.

Yet then Peter has his vision of the White Sheet, which includes ALL other peoples. ALL other races.

I just dont know about this one. Apologies for waffling. It's late and I'm tired!

[lsands]

So............... I think that the issue on the priesthood ban was a cultural imposition based on the circumstances of 19th century America, and I don't think that God in all his love and glory had a whole heap to do with it.

Cuture, culture, culture!!!
I don't want to look up all of the sources, etc., to document this, but it is well-known that JS ordained a few blacks to the priesthood. It seems that BY is the one who put racism into church policies.

This was not just a nineteenth century phenomenon---it persisted all the way down until Kimball's "revelation" in '78, prompted by exactly the concerns about bloodlines that you mention. This was shortly before the Sao Paulo, Brazil temple was dedicated, and it would have been nearly impossible to sort out who could go and who could not.

I attended a presentation by Mike Quinn at Sunstone several years ago where he documented (in his extremely thorough manner) racist policies and teachings by church leaders throughout the twentieth century. While white leaders of other churches were joining the civil rights movement, our "prophets" were as racist as other narrow-minded Americans. Interestingly, after Quinn traced the history of racism in the LDS church, he compared it to current day homophobia.

And even though church policy on blacks and the priesthood changed in '78, it is not surprising at all that racist attitudes persist to this day. There have been a few books and articles written on black Mormons' experience in the church in the last few years, beginning with the 25th anniversary of the "revelation" in 2003.

[miss taken]

See, I was over here in the UK and I knew very little of what you say, particularly about the influence of the temple in Sao Paulo. Thanks.

The other thing I always heard was that black people (however that is defined - I'm pretty olive skinned myself) were somehow complacent in the war in heaven.
That they failed to put their hands up when voting for the Saviour's plan.. so the dark skin was a curse.

My hubby (a non-mormon) was like....oh...so the heat of the sun had nothing to do with it then. He thought the concept was ridiculous.

I have to say that I agree with him wholeheartedly.

[free thinker]

I am pretty sure that the doctrine of Ham's lineage etc sprang from the Pearl of Great Price. When you consider the fraudulent nature of the Book of Abraham, you have to accept the idea that all the priesthood prohibition is also a man made idea. It is, frankly, nothing but racism! Some of it made expedient by the racial tensions in the Missouri area , as Joseph Smith considered running for president, and tried not to inflame the current political tensions of the time.

It is all silliness to me now. I know it is all man made! :Crazy: There is no way to defend it.

Free Thinker

[bzcutah]

I am pretty sure that the doctrine of Ham's lineage etc sprang from the Pearl of Great Price. When you consider the fraudulent nature of the Book of Abraham, you have to accept the idea that all the priesthood prohibition is also a man made idea. It is, frankly, nothing but racism! Some of it made expedient by the racial tensions in the Missouri area , as Joseph Smith considered running for president, and tried not to inflame the current political tensions of the time.

It is all silliness to me now. I know it is all man made! :Crazy: There is no way to defend it.

Free Thinker


In light of the WHOLE nature of the High Priesthood.
There has only ever been one High Priest. One who was allowed in Holy of Holies to mediate the sins of the world between God and man. Only one.
In Judaism it was this way since Mechelzedik as far as I know.

In Hebrews 7, we see that once there were priest(s). Because they were limited by death. So when one would perish, another would take his place. But only one at a time.
Then with Christ annulling the old due to it's imperfection, gave His life and his blood to pay for the sins of the people once and for all, and rose again to be THE High Priest once and for all, to be our mediator forever, as well as a living sacrifice that does not need to be carried out over and over again.

Hebrews 7-11 really tie it all together. But particularly in that later parts of Hebrews 7. I believe verse 20 and on from there is the exact piece that I just referred to.

Anyway. What I am getting at, is that I don't believe that the concept of the LDS priesthood (with or without certain types of people) is in any way accurate, nor does it even remotely resemble the priesthood of old other then the name.

This is a historical review, not necessarily religious.

They might use the same titles/names as Judaism, but the LDS priesthood is unique and unlike anything represented in Historical Christianity or Judaism.

[bzcutah]

I think it's obvious. But I'll play the role of 'Captain Obvious' right now.

The LDS priesthood 'restoration,' was the key element to Joseph Smith's beginning as prophet. Which he included in a round about way in giving his testimony (in all of the 9 different versions).. That all the other churches were corrupt, and that he needed to restore what was lost.

Without his claim to unique and 'true' authority, the LDS church "Church of Christ" or whatever name they were using at the time, would have fell flat on its face.

Joseph Smith made an appeal to human nature, giving a person status in the church. Making them a "High Priest". Feeding into the vanity that mankind typically craves.

But, how many have even stopped to think about it.
Obviously many here have.

But as I pointed out in my last message. In Historical Judaism / Historical Christianity there was only even 1 high priest at a time. Christ claimed the priesthood with his sacrifice, and secured it with the surety of an endless life. So he alone is High Priest.

The only way that the priesthood could have been wiped from the face of the earth, and the church have fallen into complete apostacy, is if Christ hadn't rose out of His grave to claim the Priesthood.

Some may believe he did rise again, and some may negate that. But it can't be both ways.

If He did raise from the dead, then the High Priesthood is His, and He alone is High Priest.

Otherwise, the LDS priesthood is still bunk, because according to the Torah/Bible there was only 1 high priest, not many.

So in 2 critical ways, the LDS church has a flawed priesthood.

[pokatator]

So in 2 critical ways, the LDS church has a flawed priesthood.

BZCUTAH is right and very well said. Also the Temple veil was rent on the day of the crucifixion. This means that every one has a direct link to God thru Jesus Christ. No need for the Levites (temple workers of that day), but the Mormons have sewn up a new veil just like the Jews did in Jesus' time.

This makes all the mormon temple stuff useless, phoney, and unecessary. An the list could go on and on.

Thanx for this thread......

Randy

[free thinker]

In Palmers book , " An Insiders View of Mormon Origins" ,I learned about the vagaries of the situation surrounding the supposed restoration of the melchesidek priesthood. It was not cut and dried as the current church leadership would like us to believe. As with everything else Joseph Smith did , it is controversial, and contained a certain element of subterfuge. I do not believe new testament apostles ever visited him to restore keys etc. But it does make a good story!! :o

As far as authority goes! Who can say who has authority from God, and who does not? It is making quite an assumption I think.

Free Thinker

[bzcutah]

As far as authority goes! Who can say who has authority from God, and who does not? It is making quite an assumption I think.

Free Thinker


Assuming the authority is relative to Judaeo theism there is no doubt that the authority and priesthood that the LDS claim to have is not the authority passed down from that particular theism/authority. The history is what counts in relation to the priesthood. From the beginning to the end of the priesthood lineage, there was only one high priest, as I explained.
In Judeao/Christian theism (in which the LDS church claims to be based on). The priesthood lineage ended at Christ, as explained in Hebrews 7.

So WHO can say who has authority from God and who doesn't? I guess that depends on which God/faith/religion you believe in. But if it is Biblical Christianity, or any kind of Judeao theism, there is no doubt that the LDS priesthood is totally false.

[peter_mary]

Personally, I think the origin of the priesthood thing is obvious. When you are establishing an organization, you need a hierarchy (according to classic western-male thinking). You gotta know who's on your side, who's making the decisions, and who's enforcing the rules. Priesthoods in all their myriads of forms (all Churches have 'em in one form or fashion), is just good ol' boys making up and enforcing their own rules. There's no history, there's no inspiration, there's nothing but boys forming a club, complete with secret handshakes, agreeing on what the rules are gonna be. Interesting that most of them are also "no girls alowed clubs." What was the club from "The Little Rascals?" Something like the "He-Man's Woman Hating Club." Yeah, that's like most good ol' boys clubs, including the Mormon Priesthood. "Sleep with 'em, let 'em wash your socks, but DON'T associate with 'em!"

Apparently, men with African blood (whatever the hell that looks like...last I checked it was A, B, AB or O just like white people's blood) were not welcome in the club, because boys have ALWAYS been untrusting of people who are different from themselves. So keep 'em out. Same as women--can't trust 'em, keep 'em out. And Gentiles. And Jews. And Muslims. And athiests. And gay people. Keep 'em all out, because THEY AIN'T FOLLOWIN' OUR RULES!

(Everybody say "amen.")

So Priesthood is just another manifestation of good ol' boys deciding who they are going to hang with, same as the KKK, the SS in Nazi Germany, the Masons, Al Qaeda, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Paul

[bzcutah]

Personally, I think the origin of the priesthood thing is obvious. When you are establishing an organization, you need a hierarchy (according to classic western-male thinking). You gotta know who's on your side, who's making the decisions, and who's enforcing the rules. Priesthoods in all their myriads of forms (all Churches have 'em in one form or fashion), is just good ol' boys making up and enforcing their own rules. There's no history, there's no inspiration, there's nothing but boys forming a club, complete with secret handshakes, agreeing on what the rules are gonna be. Interesting that most of them are also "no girls alowed clubs." What was the club from "The Little Rascals?" Something like the "He-Man's Woman Hating Club." Yeah, that's like most good ol' boys clubs, including the Mormon Priesthood. "Sleep with 'em, let 'em wash your socks, but DON'T associate with 'em!"

Apparently, men with African blood (whatever the hell that looks like...last I checked it was A, B, AB or O just like white people's blood) were not welcome in the club, because boys have ALWAYS been untrusting of people who are different from themselves. So keep 'em out. Same as women--can't trust 'em, keep 'em out. And Gentiles. And Jews. And Muslims. And athiests. And gay people. Keep 'em all out, because THEY AIN'T FOLLOWIN' OUR RULES!

(Everybody say "amen.")

So Priesthood is just another manifestation of good ol' boys deciding who they are going to hang with, same as the KKK, the SS in Nazi Germany, the Masons, Al Qaeda, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Paul


I think that is not just Western thinking. I think it is pack mentality. A natural method of protection. Like wolves, elephants, buffalo, ect...

We are similar to animals.

We all have governments regardless of our religious affiliation.

The idea that the LDS church is the only true church, is just as silly as Capitolism being the only true means of government.

LOL

[Born Free]

I think that is not just Western thinking. I think it is pack mentality. A nature method of protection. Like wolves, elephants, buffalo, ect...

We are similar to animals.

Sorry to repeat post this quote, which I warmed to when I first read it. I think it has relevence to this discussion.

"The reason 'spiritual' is used here in relation to the dimension that distinguishes the human from the animal. We believe that human beings have a 'spiritual' dimension in that (i) they are capable of self-consciousness, and (ii) they are capable of making a metaphysical paradigm shift from a core motive of competitive survival (FEAR) to a core motive of collective survival (LOVE). Such a paradigm shift, we believe, is the uniquely human choice that represents the great divide between those whose lives naturally contribute to the building up of the dynamic structures that provide for shared existence, and those whose lives naturally detract from or even destroy such structures."

Humanity at Work - Scott and Harker

I see that sort of exclusive behaviour as what Scott and Harker define as "core motive of competitive survival (FEAR)" Of course, they are far from alone in that sort of model for differentiating fear from love-based behaviour.

Of course we are capable of animal behaviour, because we have the same parts of the brain as animals that are survival/fight/flight based. But, we also have higher brain functions that we can choose, socialize and habituate to use or ignore.

I might differ a bit from Paul on my take on heirarchies, though. Males have a tendency to prefer heirarchies, and it can be argued that that can help us be less violent as well as more violent. But women also use heirarchal structure, if my reading of more recent feminist thinkning is accurate. Heirarchies are better suited to tasking, a traditional male emphasis. Networks excel at relating.

See, I have a concern with an argument that goes: 1. men like and use hierarchal structures. 2. man are control freaks and abusive to women, therefore 3. hierarchal structure is exclusive masculine and explicitly for the control of women and minorities! IMHO that is how some feminist logic appears to go, and from where I look it fits perfectly into Scott and Harkers definition of fear-based thinking. Any 'victim' thinking is inherently fear-based, and I cannot see how that 'victim' position can be escaped or moved beyond, until the fear-based mindset is transcended. Now in saying the above, I add that in no way do I condone, justify or diminish the wrongful treatment of women or minorities.

Hierarchies are one organisational structure better suited to some tasks than others, just as networks are. I tend not to see any structure as inherently "bad", just some more useful in some contexts than others. Of course both can be abused if the mindset of those occupying them are problematic and fear based.

And I don't see men any more prone to fear-based thinking than women. In this culture (Australia), just look at the women who gave white feathers to men who refused or resisted going off to fight in WW1.

Daryl

[bzcutah]

Those are very good points.

I believe that while the hiearchial system is appealing in Mormonism, to those who desire to Lord over others (namely men in this instance).. The LDS church of this day and age, offers much more. They are (I think) the second largest business entity in the western hemisphere of the US. They offer friends, connections, resources, and peace of mind, as well as the belief that they will take with them their families to heaven and be with them just like on earth (only a lot different).

The hiearchal system of Mormonism is only slightly appealing to say someone in Brazil, or Papa New Guinea.

The church welfare program and other resources have got to be very appealing to someone in dire need, or desire for something better.

I think most of all, the pack mentality is what drives converts to Mormonism. After all, their icon is the beehive.

Second of all, is the heiarchal system.

IMHO

[bzcutah]

BTW-
If the LDS church really modeled themselves after the beehive, they would have a woman prophet/president!
:D