Token black explains the priesthood ban

[_The Nehor]

Nice try.

So I take it you're not buying it then? I don't either, I think Brigham Young was just wrong on this point.

[_Brackite]

Nice try.

So I take it you're not buying it then? I don't either, I think Brigham Young was just wrong on this point.

Hi! This is just another point Brigham Young was wrong about. Brigham Young was wrong on several points of his.

[_Some Schmo]

God has to get over one issue at a time. He tried to rectify his racists problems with this thing in the 70's. He's still working on his misogyny and homophobia as we speak, but it's taking a back seat to his habitual warmongering.

I appreciate your humor, but we need to be clear that these failures to accept, embrace and love are from Man rather than God. Sometimes the timetables for Men can be slow, but they need encouragement rather than derision to do the right thing.

Given the fact that god and everything about him is a figment of man's imagination, there's little doubt I was actually talking about humankind and their religions. It reminds me of the Roger Waters song "What God Wants." We can justify any outrageous and immoral behavior if we claim it's what god wants.

The fact that people actually buy this crap (God wants you to give the church 10% / God wants you to deny black people/women/homosexuals equal rights / god wants you to believe in him at all costs) is what makes real thinking people regard religious folk as unintelligent boobs.

[_Brackite]

This doctrine of the priesthood not being given to the Negro race until recent times has a precedent in Christs not teaching the Gentiles until Paul received a revelation to do so.

Example: Mark 7:24-30
24 ¶ And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.
29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.


Christ would have nothing to do with the woman, because the children of the kingdom were to be dealt with first. Why? because they had a fertile ground to grow the gospel in. There was a precedent of faith.

This was changed in Acts chapter 10 when a dream is presented to Peter that the time had come to deal with the Gentiles.

Hi Gaz,

Here is Mark 7:24-30, in the New International Version of the Bible:

Mark 7:24-30: (New International Version):

The Faith of a Syrophoenician Woman

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[a] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. [b]26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

28 "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

29 Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Footnotes:

a. Mark 7:24 Many early manuscripts Tyre and Sidon
b. Mark 7:25 Greek unclean

[_Brackite]

And here is a Commentary From Matthew Henry, On Mark 7:24-30:

Commentary on Mark 7:24-30:

(Read Mark 7:24-30)

Christ never put any from him that fell at his feet, which a poor trembling soul may do. As she was a good woman, so a good mother. This sent her to Christ. His saying, Let the children first be filled, shows that there was mercy for the Gentiles, and not far off. She spoke, not as making light of the mercy, but magnifying the abundance of miraculous cures among the Jews, in comparison with which a single cure was but as a crumb. Thus, while proud Pharisees are left by the blessed Saviour, he manifests his compassion to poor humbled sinners, who look to him for children's bread. He still goes about to seek and save the lost.

( http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p ... c&b=41&c=7 )

[_Polygamy Porter]

Nice try.

So I take it you're not buying it then? I don't either, I think Brigham Young was just wrong on this point.

Hi! This is just another point Brigham Young was wrong about. Brigham Young was wrong on several points of his.

Oh I see, yet on other points he was not wrong?

In the future when gay marriage is fully accepted and normal to society, folk like you will say the same thing about Hinckley's current position against gay marriage.

Did you not read my post? Back in Briggie's day, members saw him as the mouth piece of god. He himself stood at the pulpit and stated that when he spoke from the pulpit it was as good as scripture.

A recent Ensign article said the same of General Conference talks.

With the above, can we agree there is no standard for discerning anything from any Mormon leader except public opinion and social norms?

[_The Nehor]

With the above, can we agree there is no standard for discerning anything from any Mormon leader except public opinion and social norms?

This is the reason LDS never shut up about the importance of the Spirit.

[_silentkid]

The ban was lifted as a direct intervention from god. Unless of course, all the GA's lied about the experience. And if so, why do so? They have nothing to gain by lying.

LOL! How about covering their butts? After all, these men speak god's will. What good would a drastic change in doctrine be without claiming a revelatory experience? It's not like the apostles could just tell the members that after sitting around discussing the issue for a while, they decided to change the church's racist doctrine independent of some sort of revelation.

[_Polygamy Porter]

With the above, can we agree there is no standard for discerning anything from any Mormon leader except public opinion and social norms?

This is the reason LDS never shut up about the importance of the Spirit.

Great. Yet, like many other doctrines, quotes, teachings and such, if my "feelings" from the "spirit" do not align with the accepted LDS norm I am out of line.

This is the real issue with the theology of LDS Inc. There is no hard and fast standard. It is not the same today, yesterday, and forever.

[_Gazelam]

Thanks for the comments.