Voting in the Deep South

[Radix]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

From a religious point of view, you will never see a group of Mormons getting together to pray over Mitt Romney. Mormons vary in whom they support, but I think a lot of them support Romney because they see him as the best contender to fix this economy. You will never see the Mormon church endorse anyone who is running for office. You will see Mormon's get together to pray over those who are suffering from health or to bless our leaders in general, but never someone specific TO become a political leader.

P.S. And even though I don't support many of Obama's policies, I still pray for him and his well-being and those he works with.

Good reply. The church I attend will support issues, but not specific candidates.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Radix

Welcome Mister Cherry, (in 1973), just don't expect to come to the big house. It is not meant for you dark skin folks.

Any church that banned blacks, anywhere in the USA, was WRONG.

How about you guys Marvin, where your leaders wrong to ban black members of your church from the temple? For some reason, you guys never seem to want to answer that question.

#1 They were not banned from the temple. As I said before, they did do baptisms for the dead and that can only be done in the temple.

#2 To take out your endowments requires that males have the priesthood. Since the policy, not doctrine, of the church was to not ordain them to the priesthood of God it required a revelation from God to change that. It didn't matter if the policy was of man or God, it would still require a revelation from God to change. And it was not until that revelation was received that the policy was changed. There is a long history of people advocating that the blacks get the priesthood. Hugh B. Brown a member of the First Presidency made an attempt during the presidency of David O McKay but no revelation was received and so the policy was not changed. And when the policy was changed, it was received during a time after the Civil Rights era when those who were denied their rights were guaranteed those rights by law and Federal enforcement. There was no outside pressure from any organization or govenment body.

How did the Southern churches change their policy of banning blacks? Can you tell me that it was done by revelation? Or by some other method? If by some other method, can you say that it was of God or of man? Or has the policy changed at all?

When I go the the temple today, I see people of all different colors in the temple, all worshipping together.

The priesthood belongs to God and it is only God who can make any changes to how it is administered. The judgement of whether the leaders of the church were right or wrong, is up to God not me. I do not speak for God nor am I privy to his thoughts or intentions.

But you have not answered my questions? How about the tribe of Levy? Can you see that if God has done something in the past, you should not be surprised if the does it now? Or are you going to continue using a double standard that is depended on social norms?

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Radix

That is a new one to me (about blacks being allowed to baptize for the dead before 1978.) How about holding the priesthood Marvin, what prevented that?

When it comes to the Levites, that was their duty. It did not make them any more godly than anyone in the other tribes. The Old Testament priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept.

If you believe that the OT Priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept, then you don't really know as much about LDS theology as you think. But you still have not answered the question. Go back and read what I asked and see if you can actually answer the question I asked not one of your own making.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Does anyone here know who Elijah Abel was?

He was a black man who was ordained to the priesthood by Joseph Smith. You might find more information about him at Black LDS

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Radix

Good reply. The church I attend will support issues, but not specific candidates.

Yeah, and to endorse specific candidates would be illegal for a church to do and they would lose their tax exempt status. Good reason to avoid endorsing candidates.

Marvin

[Novato]

Originally Posted by Radix

It seems that Novato likes to come in, call people who do not vote like him/her self "uneducated" and then run and hide.

Radix,

I merely offered this for discussion, no EV has offered anything worth responding to, which is pretty normal for this site.

Regards,

Novato

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Novato

Radix,

I merely offered this for discussion, no EV has offered anything worth responding to, which is pretty normal for this site.

Regards,

Novato

......I share your views as to the direction of this conversation...

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

#1 They were not banned from the temple. As I said before, they did do baptisms for the dead and that can only be done in the temple.

#2 To take out your endowments requires that males have the priesthood. Since the policy, not doctrine, of the church was to not ordain them to the priesthood of God it required a revelation from God to change that. It didn't matter if the policy was of man or God, it would still require a revelation from God to change. And it was not until that revelation was received that the policy was changed. There is a long history of people advocating that the blacks get the priesthood. Hugh B. Brown a member of the First Presidency made an attempt during the presidency of David O McKay but no revelation was received and so the policy was not changed. And when the policy was changed, it was received during a time after the Civil Rights era when those who were denied their rights were guaranteed those rights by law and Federal enforcement. There was no outside pressure from any organization or govenment body.

How did the Southern churches change their policy of banning blacks? Can you tell me that it was done by revelation? Or by some other method? If by some other method, can you say that it was of God or of man? Or has the policy changed at all?

When I go the the temple today, I see people of all different colors in the temple, all worshipping together.

The priesthood belongs to God and it is only God who can make any changes to how it is administered. The judgement of whether the leaders of the church were right or wrong, is up to God not me. I do not speak for God nor am I privy to his thoughts or intentions.

But you have not answered my questions? How about the tribe of Levy? Can you see that if God has done something in the past, you should not be surprised if the does it now? Or are you going to continue using a double standard that is depended on social norms?

Marvin

You are living under the New Covenant dispensation. All Christians are priests to God, and none are excluded by race. You Mormons are not of the lineage of Levi, or Aaron, or Ephraim for that matter. You have taken the OT Covenant, modified it, and attempt to replace the New Covenant with this distorted OT "covenant." You do not rightly divide the Word of God, which is quite evident to any Christian who reads the BoM.

[Radix]

Originally Posted by Novato

Radix,

I merely offered this for discussion, no EV has offered anything worth responding to, which is pretty normal for this site.

Regards,

Novato

No thanks to your insulting remarks.

Since you insinuate I am "seemingly uneducated", do you care to give us your educational background? I have stated mine.

[jdjhere]

BigJulie asked: "So, do you believe, as does my evangelical friend, that marriage ends at death?"

You know what BigJulie? I really dont know! But there is a verse that says something about not marrying in the afterlife? But I have never studied it or that subject so I dont know.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

BigJulie asked: "So, do you believe, as does my evangelical friend, that marriage ends at death?"

You know what BigJulie? I really dont know! But there is a verse that says something about not marrying in the afterlife? But I have never studied it or that subject so I dont know.

I asked because you said this:"As a family, they would be together anyway as long as they were all in Christ."

But, I ask you---what recognition do you believe that God makes to families? Does he still recognize someone as your child, your spouse, your parent? Or are you just one big, blended family now?

This is a really interesting point to me because I think these family ties to go on beyond death IF we recognize the Lord's hands regarding His sealing powers. When we are baptized, we join Christ's family. Through an everlasting covenant, we are sealed to Him and He is sealed to us. He is the bridegroom, we are the bride. But, do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?

[Radix]

Originally Posted by Novato

Hi All:

I must admit to a degree of puzzlement over the results in the Southern portion of the USA regarding the GOP primaries held there. It seems fairly obvious that Mitt Romney will win the eventual nomination, however I find the exit poll results quite fascinating in regard to the 80% of voters who align themselves to EV Christianity.

Since I have been many times in the South, and still remain puzzled by their, seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.



Novato

I see you still have not bothered to even apologize for your disparaging remarks. I have given my educational background, when will you lay out yours.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

If you believe that the OT Priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept, then you don't really know as much about LDS theology as you think. But you still have not answered the question. Go back and read what I asked and see if you can actually answer the question I asked not one of your own making.

Marvin

OverTime Priesthood and Mormon Concept?
Hum, ah, What?
I've put on my thinking cap,(watch out everybody), and My TC aint workin very well, or as it says, "There aint nothin in common with the OverTime Priesthood, and Mormonism?

[Novato]

Originally Posted by Radix

I see you still have not bothered to even apologize for your disparaging remarks. I have given my educational background, when will you lay out yours.

Hi Radix,

If I caused offence I sincerely apologise. However if you examine the OP more exactly you might see that I stated:

seemingly uneducated or uninformed, response to many things, I suppose I should understand the weirdness of their voting trends.

The important word is seemingly.

My educational background is absolutely non-biblical. I have Masters Degrees in Political Science and Military subjects. I also have a, very old, BSc in Electronic Engineering. On a part time basis, just for fun, I completed a BA in History. One of the, very few, advantages of being a public servant. ( Smile)

Once again my apologies if I caused offence, that was not my intent.

Best regards,

Novato

[alanmolstad]

What voting this year in the Republican Primary has shown us is that there is a strong core of conservative voters this season that are ready to support a candidate that speaks things that reflect their views.

The SC primary was interesting , in that it went strongly for Newt and when you go back into history the winner of the SC Primary mostly always wins the Party top spot on the ticket.

This year is a bit different however in that whereas most years we have but a single conservative alternative guy in the race, this year we have 2 that seek to be the conservative candidate, with a 3rd person (Ron Paul) also helping to split up the votes.

This has ended us up with a conservative vote that seems on the outside to be all split up.....and in truth it is.

The South votes so far show us that there is a strong conservative vote out there to be tapped.

But the many names still on the ballot at this point tend to mute the importance of the conservatives.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

If you believe that the OT Priesthood has nothing to do with the current day Mormon concept, then you don't really know as much about LDS theology as you think. But you still have not answered the question. Go back and read what I asked and see if you can actually answer the question I asked not one of your own making.

Marvin

So, you are a descendent from Aaron? Hey, neat! Do you observe the Seventh Day Sabbath, never kindle a fire on that day, or wear clothing not woven from more than one type of cloth? You don't eat hot dogs, right? Or, if you do, only kosher! Does you wife light the Sabbath candle Friday night? What do you think of Schneerson, was he the messiah? And Washington Heights is Zion, right?

Right, you guys have an OT priesthood!

[jdjhere]

BigJulie Asked: "do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?"

I guess I have never really thought about it but the word divorce probably isnt the word I would use since God "hates divorce." I guess (and these are only MY thoughts) that, since we will be eternal beings after the resurrection, maybe we will not need to reproduce anymore? Matthew 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
As far as I know, angels do not reproduce, but I have to admit I do not know a whole lot about what the afterlife will be like, exactly anyway. I only DO know that Jesus said in his Fathers house there were many room and that He was going there to prepare a place for us. And I DO know that Jesus was the first one to get a glorified body and that we as his followers are promised the same. The rest to me is just a lot of speculation and I have alot of questions when I get there.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

BigJulie Asked: "do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?"

I guess I have never really thought about it but the word divorce probably isnt the word I would use since God "hates divorce." I guess (and these are only MY thoughts) that, since we will be eternal beings after the resurrection, maybe we will not need to reproduce anymore? Matthew 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
As far as I know, angels do not reproduce, but I have to admit I do not know a whole lot about what the afterlife will be like, exactly anyway. I only DO know that Jesus said in his Fathers house there were many room and that He was going there to prepare a place for us. And I DO know that Jesus was the first one to get a glorified body and that we as his followers are promised the same. The rest to me is just a lot of speculation and I have alot of questions when I get there.

I understand what Matthew said regarding marriage. I also talked to a greek professor about it and he stated that the "tense" of the words are lost in English. Hence, I believe that Christ was speaking strictly to those whom asked him the question.

Yes, God doesn't like divorce---and yet, while you see that marriage is eternal when it comes to Christ as the bridegroom and the church as the bride--somehow you believe (from this verse in Matthew) that God would end marriage (his ins***ution and creation) upon death. Yet, we have Paul telling us that the man and the woman are together "in the Lord."

I also don't understand the concept, that God, the great creator, would--upon perfecting our bodies--make the creation part of our bodies defunct. It seems just the opposite---that one of the grand purposes of His creation is that it goes on creating. We see that in the world today--unless you think that your offspring are merely the result of God speaking a child for you.

While "the flesh" seemed to take on a wicked tone under Plato and the Greek thinkers, doesn't God merely teach us that we are to overcome the flesh--that the spirit needs to control the body? And isn't marriage creating a proper confine in which our spirits control the body to do the will of God?

I will never fully understand a religion that sees pro-creation as wicked and something that needs to be ended with resurrection and creation as glorious and the very definition of who God is. It seems that those positions run counter to each other.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

BigJulie Asked: "do you think that God divorces all who were brought together through him once they die so that He no longer recognizes your marriage/family?"

I guess I have never really thought about it but the word divorce probably isnt the word I would use since God "hates divorce." I guess (and these are only MY thoughts) that, since we will be eternal beings after the resurrection, maybe we will not need to reproduce anymore? Matthew 22:30 says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."
As far as I know, angels do not reproduce, but I have to admit I do not know a whole lot about what the afterlife will be like, exactly anyway. I only DO know that Jesus said in his Fathers house there were many room and that He was going there to prepare a place for us. And I DO know that Jesus was the first one to get a glorified body and that we as his followers are promised the same. The rest to me is just a lot of speculation and I have alot of questions when I get there.

I can't figure out why TBMs run away from 19th century mormon teachings.
They didn't bother to speculate. as far as Mormon men, it was glory days are a coming, and lots of sex too.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I can't figure out why TBMs run away from 19th century mormon teachings.
They didn't bother to speculate. as far as Mormon men, it was glory days are a coming, and lots of sex too.

Anybody who says this is thinking in the terms of "mistress" and not in the terms of wives. In those days, it was not uncommon (and is still no uncommon) for men to have mistresses.

But, a wife, takes on a whole new level of responsibility. No run running around behind the back of your wife--no excitement there. And no birth control, really---so, with the kids come all the responsibility. Dad gets to take on more and more responsibility, needs of all the family members and everyone can see what everyone else is getting. There is no secrecy. Oh---and don't forget, the first wife has the say regarding to others. Gee---wouldn't it be fun to be a second wife or third.

True story---a woman shows up in SLC with nothing. Brigham Young sends her to St. George to be the third wife of a man (keep in mind, no welfare checks back in those days). On the way there, they stop the wagon for a while in a small town. A man comes up to the woman and asks what she is doing. She explains that she is on her way to St. George to be the third wife of someone. The young man states, "if you get off the wagon right now, I will marry you." She does and they do get married that day. That was my great, great grandmother.

*whew*, the excitement and the romance of living in the wild west!

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Anybody who says this is thinking in the terms of "mistress" and not in the terms of wives. In those days, it was not uncommon (and is still no uncommon) for men to have mistresses.

But, a wife, takes on a whole new level of responsibility. No run running around behind the back of your wife--no excitement there. And no birth control, really---so, with the kids come all the responsibility. Dad gets to take on more and more responsibility, needs of all the family members and everyone can see what everyone else is getting. There is no secrecy. Oh---and don't forget, the first wife has the say regarding to others. Gee---wouldn't it be fun to be a second wife or third.

True story---a woman shows up in SLC with nothing. Brigham Young sends her to St. George to be the third wife of a man (keep in mind, no welfare checks back in those days). On the way there, they stop the wagon for a while in a small town. A man comes up to the woman and asks what she is doing. She explains that she is on her way to St. George to be the third wife of someone. The young man states, "if you get off the wagon right now, I will marry you." She does and they do get married that day. That was my great, great grandmother.

Good for you.

[Libby]

Wow, that's an interesting story, Julie.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Wow, that's an interesting story, Julie.

Thanks Libby.

The fact of the matter is that people who want to criticize the early members of the church and their practice of pologamy often do what RealFakeHair does and act like the whole thing was sexual and these were a bunch of hyper-sexualized men running around having their way.

But anyone who actually reads the stories knows that for the most part, this was really hard living and a really hard time to be alive. Survival was the name of the game and many suffered greatly as they attempted to eke out an existance.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But anyone who actually reads the stories knows that for the most part, this was really hard living and a really hard time to be alive. Survival was the name of the game and many suffered greatly as they attempted to eke out an existance.

Bigj can you show me where polygamy was commanded for the NT church?

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Thanks Libby.

The fact of the matter is that people who want to criticize the early members of the church and their practice of pologamy often do what RealFakeHair does and act like the whole thing was sexual and these were a bunch of hyper-sexualized men running around having their way.

But anyone who actually reads the stories knows that for the most part, this was really hard living and a really hard time to be alive. Survival was the name of the game and many suffered greatly as they attempted to eke out an existance.

You are right. The critics are in their ivory tower criticizing what they don't understanding while those who were there and living at that time had to live it every day. Funny how reality seems to trump the ivory tower every time.

Marvin

PS. Don't forget that polygamy was never meant to be forever in this life. It was alway for a time as the Lord told Jacob in the Book of Mormon. In the Bible, there was no need to command polygamy because everyone believed it was good and proper for a man to have more than one life when he became prosperous. What would have to be commanded was to have only one life, which is what Paul was doing when he told Timothy that one of the qualifications of a bishop was to be the husband of one wife. Different culture, different needs and different commandments.