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.