An
article addressing institutionalized racism within the LDS Church
was referenced by Steve
Bloor, a (barefoot) former Mormon and bishop. (Obviously, his
goal was to denigrate the faith he formerly believed in.)
I
appended my own comment to the article referenced:
The
rationale that God determines the “times and seasons” men and women enter the world (fore-ordination) was not disputed or
debunked by this article. What was once a “curse” (to be born
dark-skinned) in earlier days clearly may not be today. The posterity
of Adam entering this world in former times may have been “blessed”
to be born in certain families and cultures (the Jewish faith, for
example) while being born into those same families and cultures today
might constitute a “curse”.
The
seed of Adam has begun to “mix” inextricably. As the author
wrote, there are no “pure” races remaining.
Clearly
we are in “transition” to a one-flock and one-Shepherd world.
This
article misstates the fundamental concept of priesthood, mistaking
TRUE priesthood for something that can be conferred by man upon men
(or women). In a ritualistic, Aaronic priesthood sense, this is true.
Men (and churches) can ordain men (or women) to perform these
functions as they see fit, with divine approbation.
But
TRUE priesthood comes from entering into the presence of God (or His
angels, hearing His own voice) and receiving authority and power from
Him by nature of one’s knowledge gained in association therewith.
This domain is NOT exclusive either to men or women. ALL may come
unto Him: male and female, black and white, bond and free. All are
alike unto God.
The
question is not “Who can be ordained?” but “Who has (and can)
come unto God?”
The
Church’s fallacy is in supposing that the priesthood received by
Joseph Smith (and others) by divine interaction could be adequately
transferred to others WITHOUT said divine interaction. The form
replaced the substance. The Church now virtually refuses to
acknowledge that “no power or influence can or ought to be
maintained by virtue of the priesthood”. Rather, Church policy is
that ALL power or influence can and ought to be maintained by virtue
of the priesthood! They have stood the doctrine on its head and
turned it inside out.
Church
authority is NOT priesthood authority. The priesthood can exist (and has existed) WITHOUT the LDS Church. But the LDS Church — organized and
established as it is, having made itself DEPENDENT upon priesthood
ordination and authority — CANNOT exist now without “priesthood
ordination”.
It
was not always so. In the early days of the LDS Church, Church
leaders were selected and elected, not ordained. A cultural remnant
of that “election” process persists in the raising of the right
hand to “sustain” the now designated (no longer elected)
leadership. Church leaders formerly didn’t have to hold
“priesthood”. But Church POLICY was changed to mandate that only
ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD HOLDERS have authority in the Church. This
relegated sisters to “second-class” status and deluded men into
thinking they possessed divine power (or authority) simply because
they were ordained to an office or calling, rather than because they
had ACTUALLY entered into God’s presence and received divine
knowledge and a commission from Him. This was a grave mistake.
Thus
the “Priesthood” in the Church today is only a glimmer of what it
was (or could be), it now “having a form of godliness, but denying
the power thereof.”
Such
was explained recently in Passing
the Heavenly Gift, a book by Denver Snuffer, the
publishing of which got him excommunicated from the LDS Church a few
months ago.
