Friday, November 27, 2009

Black Friday

Another of the many side effects we just weren't smart enough to plan on from writing this blog is the questions we would receive about our beliefs and church doctrine. We do our best to respond to every email we get, though we in no way consider ourselves a better source of information then say ones own Bishop, home teachers, the scriptures, or the local missionaries. So because it's Thanksgiving weekend, and I will be too busy eating, sleeping and helping my Sisters implement their early morning Black Friday shopping strategies, to be able to get on the computer and post sommit. I have scheduled this post for today, which is one of the more interesting Q&A's we've gotten:

Dear Jake and Calvin,

I have a question for my favorite bloggers. I'm really disturbed by something my mom and I have been talking about, and I'm hoping to get your take on it. I have a date with a guy this Saturday. Nice guy, returned missionary, college graduate, and etc. good qualities. Oh, and he's black, while I happen to be white. Upon telling my mom this, she looked like she was going to pass out. Then she told me three facts:

1. I should cancel because this will literally make my grandparent's sick (my grandparent's already happen to be quite ill, so I take it that if they get anymore sick, they might die. Great, I'm responsible for killing my grandparents)
2. White guys who find out I dated a black guy, will never consider dating me.
3. The church has counseled us to date within our race.

Soooo, what should I do? I personally don't have a problem dating someone who is a different color than me. Assuming you guys are white, would you have a problem dating a girl, knowing she had previously dated a black guy? I think these facts my mom gave me are BS but, I would love your opinions.




Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. Did you go on your date or not?

In this email I am going to refer to you as "Cherry" and the black guy you hopefully went out with as "Roger". Here are my thoughts on your Moms "facts":

1. I should cancel because this will literally make my grandparent's sick (my grandparent's already happen to be quite ill, so I take it that if they get anymore sick, they might die. Great, I'm responsible for killing my grandparents)
I'm sorry to hear that your grandparents might literally die from the sickness they will feel about you dating a black guy added on to how sick they already are. Racism is a deep routed prejudice that is easy for people to latch onto. Those of older generations grew up in a much different world then the one we live in now. My grandpa was the most racist person I ever met. He was a carpenter and used to walk around joking that his "...hammer had killed 14 niggers, 7 Jews, and one Nazi but only because I killed all the other Nazi's with my gun." My Grandpa was a good man, a priesthood holder, a Sunday School teacher (and no, he never really killed anybody). He was a good kind and caring man, that joke is an extreme example, but he really did think differently of people solely because of their skin color. That's how he was raised. Living his whole life in Utah he was seldom faced with an opportunity to get to know other races. He did serve his mission in Cincinnati and baptized a black man, whose family still belongs to the church. Grandpa referred this guy as "the only decent black he ever met." Definitely not the right or a righteous perception and I am not sticking up for Gramps, just because there is a reason doesn't make it an excuse.
Two years before Grandpa passed away my cousin adopted a little black baby. Grandpa's initial reaction was terrible (what else would you expect from an old racist). However after he met and got to know the baby, he fell in love with the little guy. His lifetime of ignorant hatred was finally challenged and he had a decision to make. Like any adult child of God he had his free agency, and chose to set his lifetime of racism aside and to accept and love this grandchild like any of his other little honky grandkids.
Your grandparents disapproval of you dating a black guy is not right. They are like any other child of God, given the agency to choose right from wrong. If you do date Roger then hopefully they will be able to see past their bigotry. If not, and they die, they died because they were old, sick, and racist... none of those are your fault. When you get to the spirit world you and your grandparents will likely sit around laughing about the whole thing.

2. White guys who find out I dated a black guy, will never consider dating me.
Maybe when your mom went to High School and Journey was the number one band in America, the white guys around her thought like this. I do not, Calvin does not, and none of our other roommates do either. I have never heard any guy say that "She dated a black guy." was one of the red flags he was considering dumping or not dating her for. This may be a bit different depending on where you live. I'll admit I don't know everything about every community in America. There are certainly still places where young white men are racist and would judge you negatively for associating with known blacks. However, in most communities, even in the predominately white bubble that folks live in in Utah, this is not the case.
It is 2009, 46 years since Martin Luther King yelled out "I have a dream", most people are in fact, living in the now. Most, good educated white men are not racist. If a guy would not consider dating you because you had dated a black man, then that guy is racist and ignorant. Whether or not that's his fault, I would submit that if what your Mom says is true, and I'm just walking around the world with rose colored glasses on, then you wouldn't want to date him anyway. Who wants to date a racist. Not you right? So then by default this question cancels itself out. Problem solved.

3. The church has counseled us to date within our race.
I hate it when I hear this, only because it is so wrongly represented by most people when they say it. I am probably as white as they come. Thank goodness I grew up in a predominately black and asian community. My first kiss was a black girl, my first 10 crushes weren't white. I am extremely attracted to dark skinned and ethnic women. So this topic is one I have taken some interest in, especially when I became old enough to date and my Dad tried to pull the same "counseled against" line on me.
It is well documented that mixing races in our American society can even today bring ostracism, non-acceptance, prejudice, rancor, even persecution, if it wasn't that way, you wouldn't be asking and I wouldn't be answering this question. These feelings do not die easily and are passed-on generation after generation. Not only do the mixed parents face social road blocks, but their children who are neither black nor white, (but make some really sexy actors and actresses) even more so, could be the object of this misplaced ridicule. It is not just black and white, it could be any mixture of any set of races.
The Church does not prohibit inter-racial marriages or dating. There is no doctrinal basis for that statement. Also, any council about inter-race relationship that I can find, when taken in context, are referring to cultural differences and NOT the pigmentation of anyone's skin. That being said the Brethren have counseled that successful marriage is most likely to occur when the participants are of generally similar backgrounds.
So what am I saying? The leaders of our Church are very aware of the world in which we live. Marriage is one of the most important things that we will do in this life. With divorce rates rising it is evident that marriage is difficult. Marrying someone with different cultural backgrounds can add stress to marriage. So there is definitely logic in the idea that on a large scale marriage will be more difficult for couples with differing cultural beliefs and backgrounds than couples who do not have that issue added on top of all the other issues that make marriage hard. From what you wrote I don't think that is what your Mother had in mind when she informed you of her "facts".
A young black man that marries a young white woman who both grew up in the same town, with all of the same core beliefs and societal influences will most likely have an easier marriage than a white girl born and raised in New York City who marries a young white bull rider from a 100 population Wyoming town. Either persons race has zero to do with that. I'm rooting for both couples to have a long and happy marriage though.
So Cherry, the truth is, you do marry the people you date. Considering all aspects of a relationship should be foremost on your mind when choosing who to date. I think that caution is the appropriate attitude to take when dating anyone with a different background from yours, not immediate disqualification. Roger's cultural background has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it has to do with who he was raised by, where, and what they believed and taught him. If Roger is an African born and raised in Swahili, or an African-American raised in the deep south, or his parents were both top agents with Avon... his culteral background is likely very different from yours and you will want to think about the life you could be getting yourself into, but even then, none of those things are reasons that a couple can't have the happiest marriage on earth.
So (sorry to get long-winded) the Brethren, knowing that marriage is difficult on any level, even for couples of the same race and religion, know that adding all the societal, cultural, and ethnic ostracism on top of race will make it harder in this life. But only in this life. All races, mixed or not, when sealed in the holy temple, receive all the blessings of eternity, and not one less. Just know going into it that in the weakness and inadequacy of mankind eruptions of bigotry will occur.

Cherry, I definitely think that any guy who you can describe as "Nice guy, returned missionary, college graduate, and etc. good qualities." whether he's black, white, yellow, or blue deserves a date without prejudice. He probably also deserves a nice hug at least. Perhaps at some point some flirty leg touches too, I don't know, you be the judge.

Now, if he's ugly or stupid... well that's a completely different story. There are so many petty reasons to disqualify a prospective mate that doing it because he's "Black" is just silly. Notice also that "ugly" and "beautiful" are not racist, maybe your Mom and Grandparents shouldn't be either.


Here are a couple pertinent scriptures you can bust out if you need reinforcements, I mean they're only from The Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion.

"[Jesus Christ] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Nephi 26:33).

"Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God." (1 Nephi 17:35)


Cherry reported that she did go out with Roger. He did receive a well deserved hug, and her Grandparents lived. Thank goodness.



Paula said...

Well said! When I was on a dating panel for a youth fireside and this question was raised, I turned it over to our Hispanic bishop who is married to a white gal. It wasn't nearly as eloquent as this.

Nikki said...

OK Hold on here...first this is a great post. Having a political blog and a talk show with a black friend we talk about race relations a lot, so this is right up my alley and I agree with almost everything you have stated...BUT and it's a big ass but, I grew up when Journey was the number one band and the 80's were very progressive. Get your decades straight, the 50's, 60's and 70's were jacked up, not the eighties...Okey dokey!? This is the decade where being gay started to be cool and Michael was black and hip hop was born. Stop sticking us eighties people in with friggin hippies and greasers. We were punk and punks were progressive establishment haters. Don't make me hit you in the street. I don't want to talk about this again. Come correct MBP or I will. :)N

Autumn said...

Bravo Jake. Brav-freaking-o. You deserve whatever you want for that answer. Someone give this guy a cookie or something. I have NEVER heard it explained in the way you explained it, and that was amazing. The reason the church has said anything about dating within your race is because it has been proven that people outside races have more fights. They may have the same morals, but there are still things that can cause issues, such as racist parents, grandparents, etc. But, anyone can have differences. The church is just there to help avoid it as much as possible. Jeez Jake. Seriously. I want to reward you for that answer. Thank you.

Nikki said... are from Utah County then your assessment stands. Even today you would be correct. :)N

20 Something said...

I really liked this post. Well said, and thanks for sharing your opinion. Its awesome to hear what other people think even on touchy subjects like this.

Julie said...

Take a bow Jake!!!! I am standing on my couch applauding you! Well said! However, I have the same beef as Nikki. I grew up in the 80's, and we really were progressive, even waaaaay back then.

Anonymous said...

Shut up Nikki your old, get over it!!

Nikki said...

Anonymous 4:04...I KNOW I AM OLD!! How about you get over it And STFU about it!!!

Nikki said...


amanda leeann said...

racism makes me sick. i don't understand how people can hate other people so much. but you phrased it all very well, and i'm glad she went out with him =]

Maggie said...

Good job guys. My opinion of Mos just went up.

Shelby Lou said...

I love this post.
I think 80 percent of black guys are dang fine.
My father would kill me if I dated someone of a different race, ANY race. He is catholic, the rest of my family is inactive... basically I would be stoned to death. BUT I wouldn't care.

Jake. You rock my world, you took care of that so well, and represented your view of the church so well. Kudos to you and your awesomeness.


Brittany said...

This was probably my favorite post ever! I love how open minded you guys are and how you think for yourselves!

Sam, The Nanti-SARRMM said...

Your reader, Cherry, reads the 100 Hour Board it seems.

Good answers, by the way.

Anonymous said...

Jake, you're really smart. I will always ask you my gospel questions.

I would still rather get it on with Calvin though. Sorry.

Tara said...

Interesting, the funny guys have a brain too.

This is good, this is very good.

Kimkidoni said...

That was very well said. I'm impressed.

Val Hunter said...

I say that you post people's questions and answer back more often! This is fabulous! Thanks for sharing. I converted to the LDS faith, so my entire family, being from the root of racism, North Carolina to be exact would most likely disown me if I married a black guy...I married a white guy only because that's what I am attracted to but when I have children someday, there will be no boundaries on race when it comes to who they marry! Times are a'change'n

Amy said...

Jake, you are amazing. We now know we can go to you for advice.
I hate hearing that the church has counseled us to date within your own race. That's so not true. People are constantly misinterpreting it. The way you explained it is perfect though. You explained it the same way my stake president did. Well said mister, well said.

I'm glad she went on a date with him, and that he got a hug. And I'm glad her grandparents lived.

Kelly said...

This was the most mature post I have ever seen here. Well said!

ginger said...

"Cherry" also posted this question on the BYU 100 Hour Board to the same answer.

That Chick said...

very well said.

UGH. intolerant idiots like that make me sooo mad.

I'm from the deep south, born and raised there my whole life. I've dated people of different races before, and no one has really given a flying crap. I've seen a ton of interracial couples all throughout my life, family friends, people in my home ward, kids in high school... so i also resent whenever someone tries to pull some crap about everyone in the south being a hard core racist. blegh. screw em all.

this girl's mom is off her freaking rocker.

Devin & Ruthann said...

All your advise is very well said.

kelly anne said...

beautifully explained. :)

Monica said...

Bravo Jake, bravo. This post just catapulted you to a solid 10.

Lorelei said...

I just love the title of this post. So appropriate!

xoxo Lorelei

Nate said...

Ask a Mormon Bachelor... interesting segment and good advice.

Nevermind said...

It is interesting that you give such a well thought out defense for black people and even call out your grandpa for being racist. But you see nothing wrong with discriminating against and mocking ugly, fat or stupid people.

"Ugly" is not racist, but it is still very cruel and abusive to mistreat people that way. Would you call your best friend ugly, your Mom ugly or your own kid?

I actually thought I was starting to like you, then I read the "ugly" part at the end and changed my mind.

Alexandra said...

Way to address an extremely difficult topic- whether or not the question was unique.
Every time someone suggests that the LDS church- and by extension, me, is racist, my first thought it punching them in the face, but then I realize that I'm not too good at throwing punches (I'm short and not very strong), and better at explaining how I feel about racism; so I end up doing that- both as the person my parents raised, and as a member of the LDS church.

Allison said...

What a great way to answer an age old question that REALLY shouldn't be controversial anymore.

Anonymous said...

i like how you completely ignored the fact that your church denied the priesthood from black people until fairly recent history. do you realize that your church believes that the color of one's skin (and one's gender) on earth is a result of the sides you took in heaven in the battle between lucifer and jesus? do you realize that your church believes that non-whites are more sinful than whites? do you realize that even though blacks can now become priesthood holders and go through temple ceremonies, they can still only become servants in the celestial kingdom? probably not. because you're mormon. and mormons know less about their church than non-members with inquiring minds since your church prohibits freedom of thought and study.

Amy said...

That last comment is a doozy. It made me exhausted reading it. I loathe the "we don't think for ourselves" crap. Wanna tackle that one Jake? Anyway, I too loved this post.
My mom and sister tried to lay this crap on me also( minus the "you might kill the grandparents" part) when I came home from work with a black male friend I wanted to hang out with. I thought for myself and pointed out the "it's the cultural differences not the color" that makes marriage difficult. I had been thinking about it for a few years by then, ever since my sister went against the "norm" and married a Chinese/Hawaiian. I thought he was Navajo at first. :)
My parents did teach me to love everyone and that Heavenly Father loves everyone. They also frowned down on dating people of other races. I never understood that hypocrisy growing up. It really was the only sign of lingering racism from their parents and for that I am grateful. I'm sure it enabled me to be as open minded as I am. So, anyway, I never did hang out with him. Not because of his color, but because I was too chicken to go hang out with a bunch of his friends I didn't know. I really hope this form of color blindness spreads around to these rising generations (how's that for an 80's reference?) One last thing, I love that you are recognizing that marriage is hard. It is. I married someone with a very similar background and it is a definite roller-coaster. Good thing I love a good thrill ride.

Nate said...

I am always baffled when other people tell me what I as a Latter-day Saint believe.

Alexandra said...

I agree, Nate. It's always...interesting...when that happens.

Jessica said...

That's so sad to hear Cherry's story. Race is irrelevant, its core values and beliefs and goals and personality and chemistry that are more important, as you guys said.

Cherry should slap her mama. Not really. But props to her for not being a bigot like it sounds like her family is. Sad.

Jessica said...

Also, I'm not particularly religious. I'm a baptized Catholic but have not been to Mass in years. But I still believe in God.

I have a problem with people trying to say God wants you to hate people because of their race (Cherry's family)or because they are a different religion (Muslim extremists).

The God I believe in loves everyone

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous 4:05 - Maybe he didn't know that the blacks were ever denied the priesthood. I mean us mormons are pretty ignorant when it comes to our own beliefs. Thanks for clearing all of that up for us. *that was sarcasm*

I like how you try to stir up controversy by twisting the truth and telling us that we believe something that we didn't even know we believe; without even giving a reference to the source of those beliefs.

Oh but wait, let me guess, you read that in your last Bible study class, or from a person passing out literature on a street corner near a Mormon temple. Guess what? Most of that stuff is just made up or twisted enough to confuse people until they don't even know what is right or not. People hate us and hate our church and will say and do anything to try and destroy our beliefs.

Maybe instead of reading all of the anti-mormon literature that you seem to know so much about, you should indulge in your freedom of thought and study (that you apparently have and all of the Mormons are forced to go without) and study the actual teachings of the Mormon church instead. It is funny how you claim to know more about what mormons believe than mormons do, but you have most likely not even read the Book of Mormon.

You think we haven't heard all of that crap before? There are many misconceptions about our beliefs, and new things are being made up every day.

Nikki said...

Anonymous 4:05 and other commenters...let's not skirt the issue by using useless diatribe meant to detract from the accusation. Too many members think that such uncomfortable historical instances have to be explained away rather than dealt with contextually.
I don't run away from Mormon history, I embrace it and accept it for the progressive nuance that it is. Members who expect perfection from the early saints and even early prophets are the ones making up dangerous romantic tales about blacks in the pre-existence, most members know that theory is an old wives tale at best.
If you look at the church and our country in it's context historically, it isn't so far fetched for a highly persecuted church to shun black men from authoritative positions. Remember the 1800's and what was going on back then? Slavery was the debate of the time, and not just a debate, it became a war, The civil war. Each state had to decide whether or not they were a slave state or a free state. Missouri at the time was undergoing what was called the Missouri compromise and had decided to be a slave state in a sea of free states. The reason this is significant is because it was the same time the Saints were experiencing the worst persecution since their beginning. Governor Boggs of Missouri had ordered the Mormons be exterminated. So here you have Mormons being raped, murdered, tarred and feathered and ordered extinguished all while the same state just declared itself pro-slavery. Call it a move of convenience. Historically it probably saved lives.
In 1979 after the civil rights movement and eased racial tension the prophet inquired of God about the matter and the Priesthood was again given to black males.
Most like to paint a more mystical reason for the action, I prefer to look at history and thought for more understanding.
We have come a long way as a nation and as a church. Some church members do like to justify their prejudice with such "fence sitting" beliefs. But for me I prefer a more pragmatic approach to such bullshit. It doesn't change the doctrine, the move to deny blacks just allowed for a young nation built on freedom to sort out it's inequality issues to allow for a more fuller gospel to thrive. Progression is good and it took over 100 years to get it right...well at least almost right.
Don't make it more than that people. It is how the country was...don't rewrite history to make us look better. Accept it. :)N

Amy said...

Aaannnddd Nikki nails it. :)

Anonymous said...

Everyone is a person doesn't matter the outside look; color skin, race, tall, short, fat, skinny, etc.. also religion or their believes. Everyone got feelings and God love us all the same, but oh well we are humans..

Heather said...

Those were some of the best answers I have ever heard in relation to this subject. Well done Jake. Well done.

Mormon Bachelor Pad said...

Anonymous 4:05: sorry, I didn't think I ignored any of those facts, I just didn't talk about them because they had nothing to do with Cherry's question. I think... I could be wrong but unfortunately, as you pointed out my Church has forbidden me to read, so I can't go back and read my own post. I'll take your word for it.

Tell you what? Email me your address and I will send over two very polite representatives from our Church to expound to you in greater detail the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. This will sound weird to you but they will repeatedly tell you to "read" and "pray" about the truth that they share. After recieving the truth, and choosing to be baptized, let me know, I will attend your baptism and reveal my actual identity to you... unless you are already a member, then just go back to Church silly. While I'm there today I will be striving to see all people as average, so there is no "ugly" and no "beautiful" (as there needs be opposition in all things and one cannot exist without the other) that way I can be more perfect, like "Nevermind" and dislike people for all the right reasons.



20 Something said...

Nikki, This is the first post I actually totally agreed with you on.

I love that all the commenters came back and just matter of factly said, Thats not true, We know what we Believe and were not ashamed of it.

Jake way to go for handling this in a respectful way. You guys have 100% right to use Mormon in your blog title and to represent the church on a blog. Its people like you guys, and all the commentors on here that stood up for our beliefs that we know are true.

Bekah Buttons said...

i like this. it's like 'dear abby' except it's not. i hope cherry & roger live happily ever after.

expect an email with my request for advice soon

Craig Barlow B. said...

This was worth your time. I feel like I've been saying this same thing over and over since high school.

Nevermind said...

-j "opposition in all things"

Way to go, you are totally distorting the scriptures to justify mocking and mistreating people for the way they look.

You don't have to see all people as average. You can see them for what they are: ugly, beautiful, black, white, fat, skinny... and still be nice to them. Your cruelty towards others is unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Not dating someone because they are ugly is just as prejudice as not dating them because they are black.

Being prejudice is not just about race, it is also about forming an opinion of someone based on their looks, gender, religion, social class, age...

Tara said...

Nevermind and Anonymous 7:48: CEASE YOUR COWARDLY HATRED.

Nevermind: so Jake answers better than me and a lot of other commenters have ever heard a difficult and controversal topic in a intelligent and still comical enough way to be accessable and to not sound all preachy and you're ripping on him for the last paragraph. You admit people are ugly... when was Jake saying to be "cruel" to them. I'm guessing if he said "Now if your just not attracted to the guy" then you would be just cool with the whole thing. Guess what moron "ugly" = "not attractive" it's Mormons like you... Here we have someone giving good solid answers and you have to go and pick out the most trivial of things to try and guilt someone about. It pisses me off you're like a damn Pharasee!

Anonymus 7:48: really? Nit dating someone you're not attracted to is like racism? What are you ugly or something? Feel obligated to stand up for your people.

Please please please don't stop answer questions like you did this one because of judgmental Mormons who hate on anything that isn't in the Ensign.

Anonymous said...

Tara - maybe you should go back to school and learn to read and write. No I did not say: " Nit dating someone you're not attracted to is like racism?"

I did say it is prejudice. And maybe you should take a class on that while you're at it.

He completely contradicted himself by saying that not dating a black person is racist, but not dating them because they are ugly is okay. Both reasons are based on looks alone, and that is the point I was making.

What makes you think that I have hatred? You seem to be the only displaying that.

Mocking people because they are fat or ugly is abuse and it is cruel. Maybe you think it is "trivial" but I do not.

Nikki said...

Anonymous 8:45, you are a retard. Your logic is so backwards I don't even know where to begin. Are you saying that unless I am interested in having sex with every single person on the planet regardless of my attraction to them, I am prejudice? Fair enough, then hell yes I am prejudice. I am a sexual bigot. You use stupid terms like "prejudice" and "racist" and "hatred" and "abuse" to intimidate others into embracing your stupid argument. And I want you to know that I am prejudiced against people like you and I am mocking you hard and without niceness.
Seriously, did you really go to school to learn that not being attracted to ugly and fat people is abuse and hate? I don't want to be visually assaulted by ugly people any more than the next guy, but I am damn sure if I am not attracted to someone, it means nothing more than that. Maybe you will screw people indiscrimately like a crack whore, but I prefer the eye candy lust method when it comes to fulfilling my needs.

Anonymous said...

The mormon church is no different than any other religion that has to evolve and change as our society changes to become more accepting of others who are viewed as different.

The problem, Nikki, is that as a mormon growing up I was taught that my church was the only true church on earth with a living prophet who spoke to god. To say "give us a break if we didn't exactly get it right in the beginning" discredits this and makes it very difficult to believe that the mormon church is in fact different than any other religion.

Jake - you really believe that the church was just trying to give good marriage advice when the doctrine of "marry within your race" was first given - Really?

I no longer consider myself to be a member of the LDS church although I still have visiting teachers who stop by once in a while and have many LDS family members and friends.
I appreciate and applaud any changes the church has made and continues to make to be more welcoming to others. Becoming more accepting of interracial marriage is just one of the many ways the church has done this.

Anonymous said...

Nice try Nikki, but nobody was talking about having sex.

I used the words "prejudice" and "racist" because they were used in the post, not to try and intimidate anyone. I was also accused of "hatred" and was only defending myself.

You use words like "retard," "sexual bigot" and "crack whore" and then throw in some vulgor language not only for shock value, but also to intimidate people.

I am referring to the mocking of fat and ugly people that is so rampant on this blog, not just this post. And yes I do think it is abusive. If you knew someone that had been called fat or ugly their whole life you would see the effects of that abuse as well. Reading this post I could no longer restrain myself from keeping silent about it. (Plus I was bored and a little debate in the MBP comment box is always a good time.)

And for the record, I could care less what turns you on or how you fulfill your lustful needs.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:38

The Mormon church does evolve and change just like other religions.

But it is the procedures that sometimes change, not the principles or doctrines.

The principle or doctrine was that the priesthood was restored to the earth.

The procedure was that at the time the priesthood was only given to certain individuals, and later to all worthy males. Things happen line upon line. For example, many church members smoked and drank in the beginning. It wasn't until Joseph Smith inquired about it that the revelation (known as the word of wisdom) was received to refrain from those harmful substances.

I am so sad that you no longer consider yourself a member of the LDS church. But I am really glad that you are willing to openly talk about it. I hope that you will continue to question things and also study and pray to find the truth.

Nikki said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nikki said...

Anonymous 9:38, If you were taught that things are only "true" when they are in a perfected form, then you were taught incorrectly. I didn't know the people running the church had to be perfect for the gospel to be true. If that is the case, then we are all screwed. I can see how someone would leave the church with that maniacal thinking. That is just a ridiculously stupid concept. I thought the whole reason for us being here was to learn and grow through our own mistakes, remember it was satan who wanted to take that away? And yet you just took that concept away by stating that we are perfect or we are false. why are we here if we are supposed to be perfected already? You are contradicting Major Mormon doctrine. The church is true...not perfect, we are still striving for that one. Your stringent doctrinal interpretation of what "only true and living church" means, is illogical and doctrinally incorrect.

Cherry said...

Wow! Pretty cool that my little email to the MBP solicited so much advise! I appreciate all of the interesting views on here, however, I would like to make it known that I respect and love my mom. Ya, she may have said some crazy stuff, but whose parent's haven't said something crazy during a conversation they intended to be private. I respectfully disagreed with her, and hope to be an example to her. Perhaps my views on dating will show her that dating someone different isn't scary or bad. It's a step in the right direction.
Also, for anyone who is interested in knowing what happened with "Roger"... we aren't going on another date. And I'm happy to say it has absolutely nothing to do with his color. We just didn't have anything in common. He is in my ward though, and I hope that we can continue to be friends. Oye, it's awkward to date people in your ward, and then have to give them the message that you aren't interested in another date. I so hate that...Anyways, thanks guys! Oh, and ya, I did ask the 100 hour board their opinion as well. It's nice to be able to anonymously ask a question and get an honest answer. No sugar coating because we know each other :)

Nikki said...

Anonymous 9:57...attraction is about sex, it is always about sex, especially for guys. Learn that now and maybe get a make over. If a guy doesn't want to get it on with a girl he is not going to ask her out. Is he prejudice? NO, he just wants to feel the juices flowing. Ugly people get married all the time, to other ugly people and probably have crazy good sex, it's all good. Your getting all butt hurt by this blog is silly. If you want to prove that you really think this way, then show us a picture of yourself and let us set you up, but remember if you reject this person because of bad breath, too many zits, greasy hair, horrible personality, too flat of a butt, too skinny or any other reason then you are a hypocrite. You are a bad breathist, a zitist or a skinnyist. People reject other people everyday for whatever reason, its what we do and you do it too. You just choose to take the cry baby approach like you are being personally raped by the ugly police. Start up an ugly hotline or a Mothers against ugly haters group. Advocate for the uglies. Hell, I guess people should be forced to hang out with the attractively challenged. Affirmative action for the hideously ugly club at school. Equal opportunity ugly employer. Abercrombie has to hire at least one ugly person or pay a fine. So ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Nikki - you really think I am ugly don't you? Now that is funny! This debate is getting stupider and stupider. I am married so there is no need for me to get a makeover or for you to set me up. But thanks anyways!

Jessica said...

Anonymous 11:24PM- being married doesn't mean you're beautiful. just an fyi

Nikki said...

Anonymous 11:24...No, I don't know anything about you, only that you are anonymous, married and an advocate for the poor uglies. You could be Max Hall for all I know or Al Gore. Maybe Barack Obama...

Anonymous said...

Nikki - I never claimed that members or church leaders had to be perfect.

Is it crazy to feel that the doctrine coming from a living prophet who talks to god should be perfect?

I have many reasons for which I have "left the church," non of which have to do with the members. Mormons are my family and friends, I would never expect them to be perfect, as I am far from it.

If the doctrine and teachings of the church are not "perfect" then why should I follow them? Good advice? I can get that lots of places. There are many different religions with great members who do there best to be good people.

Anonymous said...

Nikki - I am an advocate for verbally abused people. I have heard thin, beautiful people, repeatedly called fat and ugly or whatever. And they believe it. It is sad, very sad.

Jessica - I really don't care what your opinion of me is.

Nikki said...

Anonymous 11:33...the doctrines are perfect but sometimes our understanding of them is slow and less than perfect. God gives us as a people and as a church our own agency to figure things out. The only reason I bring that up is because you stated asked the question of why should the church if it is "true" be allowed to evolve like any other church and I ask why not? That is why we are here. I take comfort in knowing that Joseph Smith and other prophets made mistakes. I know their lives are accepted by God and therefore my imperfect life will be through repentance as well. The gospel is about progression and that includes it's people and our understanding. God gives his church a certain degree of agency and as members we need to be teachable even through the learning process of our leaders. Blacks not receiving the Priesthood until 1979 is of no consequence to the truths of faith, repentance and baptism. It is just a learning curve for the saints who had to deal with a very angry and dark time in our countries history. America's history and the world for that matter, is directly intertwined with the restoration as we know it. Freedom of religion had not been seen at any other time nor in any other country before now. The church and our country in their infancy had growing pains...and thank God, they were corrected. There is a saying, don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water. Don't esteem something as false just because it was brought forth under imperfect circumstances. You weren't there, don't judge the early saints or the church too harshly.

caitlin said...

I had no idea you could be so eloquent, good answer. As for the comments above mine, isn't a comfort to know that God and his church are perfect? It's just too bad the members aren't.

Some Dude said...

Gosh, Jake says one person is ugly and everyone gets upset.

Would you rather say unattractive? Cause that's the same thing really. Get off your prejudice high horses and realize that they're both telling us their thoughts, which will include when they think a girl is ugly.

Is it prejudice? Yes. But is that bad? No. Not all prejudice is bad, and there is prejudice all the time in dating. So shove the freaking banana in your ears!

Ryan Hadlock said...

Jake, Swahili isn't a country, it's a language from northern Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya and north to mid-Somalia. It is also spoken in eastern Dem. Rep. of the Congo and to a degree in Uganda and Rwanda.

Pretty good post though!

Anonymous said...

Some Dude - He did not just call one person ugly.

I don't know what his version of ugly is or isn't. I just know he seems to have a stringent set of rules that dictates whether he finds a person attractive or not.

He told BBL she was like a 6 or 6.5 or something. Most people consider her extremely attractive and even call her "barbie" because she is so beautiful. I don't know what his freaking problem is but I just know he is insulting and cruel.

I hope the people he rates from 1-10 have a solid self esteem.

Dude said...

Who is BBL and when was she rated?

Girl101 said...

'Cherry', its a little sad that you'd actually go change your ID name to Cherry and pretend that's your name, when it obviously isn't you. Tragic really..

Busy Bee Lauren said...

I think Jake rated me a 7...can't really remember though, because Ted rates me an 11 out of 10. Ted's opinion only matters :)

Let's all play nice.

shirley elizabeth said...

I approve of this post.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what would happen if the discrimination was because the guy was ugly and in the end of the post was typed "Now, if he's black or stupid... well that's a completely different story"

Because for me both options are the same, equally offensive.

Someone said...

Anonymous 9:05:

Now that's just silly and you know it. Not going out with someone because you don't find them attractive is different on huge levels than their race.

It's not like President Uchtdorf told any of the YSA females to be gentle in rejecting a guy who asks them out. You think attraction doesn't come into play there? You're seriously deranged. Prejudice based on attraction, based on ugliness is everywhere, deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:05 you are awesome! My thoughts exactly.

Anonymous said...

Just because you go on one date with someone doesn't mean you are going to marry them or that you have to be totally attracted to them.

Many people date someone just because they seem physically attractive. Then later they learn that they have an ugly personality. Why not date someone that you may think is unnatractive? Because you may find that they are an awesome person and they will become attractive to you.

Anonymous said...

I used to think that looks were just as important as most of the commenters here. Looking back (and my husband is in total agreement) I wish I would have believed my parents and others that told me that it is what is on the inside that matters. It really is true. Some of the most beautiful people (physically) are very ugly on the inside. And some of the people that are very ugly outwardly are really awesome, funny and confident. And that makes them attractive. You wouldn't know that if you didn't give them a chance in the first place and denied them a date because of their outward appearance.

Anonymous said...

One of my best friends is a returned missionary and most people would consider her not very physically attractive. But she is one of the coolest people I have ever known. She is funny, she is cool, she is just so awesome! The really sad part is that she is still single. That is a perfect example of people mostly caring about outward appearance.

THE Stephanie said...

Thank HEAVENS her grandparents lived!! That would have been horrible!

Anonymous said...

Maybe someday one of your grandkids will write an anonymous confession blog and talk about how his grandpa was verbally abusive to women that were fat or ugly. Maybe he will talk about how the times have changed and people are kind and polite to others no matter what their outward appearance is, unlike his grandfather.

TechieGirl said...

Wow, this really has turned into some issues for certain people. I suppose that's why I take the approach to life that I do. I worry about me. Sure it's fun to hear about what other people are doing and sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't, but I've got enough of my own problems to deal with before trying to fix other peoples' personal issues.

Anonymous said...

Oh ya, techiegirl, you worry about you. And that is why you are here telling everyone what to do.

Brynn said...

I also really enjoyed this post being that I got my degree in Sociology.
However, I do find it interesting how you explain in detail why you shouldn't be judgmental of a person based on their skin color, but then you and Calvin sound VERY judgmental when you think a girl is "ugly".
I think that you guys need to be careful when you label people.... in other words - just don't do it. Sure it is anonymous, but I would hope that you are not as shallow as you come across sometimes.
Sure, you'll date who you want to date and who you find attractive, but being rude to someone just
because YOU'RE not attracted to them is just not cool.
But... overall I did like this post.

Ryan Hadlock said...

If BBL is only a 7, I have GOT to see the girls you're dating!!!

And BBL, no I am not hitting on you, so when Anonymous gets bent out of shape that you're attractive and it's not, ans says nasty things about me and potentially you, just know I only meant it as a harmless compliment nothing more. :-)

Anonymous said...

Ryan Hadlock - I am impressed. You have been pretty nice lately so I will take it easy on you... this time! :)

Sam, The Nanti-SARRMM said...

I agree with Techie. This is getting ridiculous.

So Jake, Calvin, Kudos for allowing comments. They've been a weird adventure thus far.

Mormon Bachelor Pad said...

For the record, I have never rated BBL publicly. I have also never typed or said out loud any rating for her either. Not sure where this misinformation came from... I am 98% sure of this, and I challenge someone to find it if I did.

The only pubic rating given was to "S" since then we have held all requests until our Christmas Day rating.

Regardless of what I would rate BBL for those who actually read all of our blog, "looks" are a matter of opinion. An example of this, in direct opposition to a majority of the worlds male population, I do in fact find Kristen Stewart more attractive then Megan Fox. When the scenario crops up where I have to choose between going on a date with Kristen or Megan, and if I knew that it was my only chance and that once I chose, the girl that I don't choose, I can never ever go out with again. I would discriminate against Megan Fox because of my prejudices towards her apperarance and pick Kristen Stewart. I apologize to those that that offends, but, not because I am sorry for feeling that way, but because I am sorry that it is affecting you in a negative way.

MBP recognizes and has pointed out many times that personality is what is important. Thank you for reading and commenting everybody.


Ryan Hadlock said...

Hmm, interesting Jake. Kristen Stewart is hideous, but I can see why a guy wouldn't find Megan Fox attractive, she's a little trashy. But apparently neither have good personalities based on the MTV Video awards a few months ago. Both VERY lame!

Anyway, there still needs to be a way we can see who you're dating somehow...we have the technology...

Anonymous said...

Jake -
I think your pants are on fire. Either that or you have a terrible memory.

I remember you talking about rating BBL on twitter. I remember you rated her low enough that Ted called you an idiot or something. You even told her that her rating went up a whole point when you heard her laugh on the gangsta video (and you even pointed out the exact time that she laughed).

I don't really care about your fantasy and whether you prefer megan or kristen or ryan hadlock for that matter. You can like whomever or whatever you want to like.

Nobody is disputing the fact that looks are a matter of opinion, that goes without saying.

It is that you claim that personality is what is important and then mock people that are fat or ugly and even suggest not dating someone for being ugly. You make a great argument on behalf of black people and encourage people to not have racism, but then see nothing wrong with showing discrimination or prejudice towards other outward appearances. You are totally contradicting yourself.

Oh and you're sorry, but you're really not sorry, because you're really not sorry. Okay, got it.

btw... I didn't know you were giving "pubic" ratings. I don't even want to know what that is.

Anonymous said...

or maybe calvin pretended to be you and rated her low so that she would like him more than you. who knows.

Megan said...


It seems you are responsible for what look like 15 or so comments... what are your motives? I mean, what's the point? Are you upset that Jake has said it? Or that we all read it and praise him? Do you actually think that not going on a date with someone because you think they are ugly is the same thing as not going on a date with someone because of the color of their skin? I'm asking seriously? I would love it if you would explain why.

TechieGirl said...

Anonymous -
I wasn't telling anyone how to live their life. Just saying how I live mine. I may not agree with your comments, but you are entitled to your own opinion and I respect you for that. I'm apologize for seeming preachy. It wasn't my intention.
- Trinity

Anonymous said...

yeah its the same: outside appearance
And if you all can't see that simple fact...

If you all really think there is difference then you are more racist/superficial than what you think you are.

So going in a date with someone black and beautiful is ok, black and ugly is bad. So better not be ugly... lol
Conclusion lets go discriminate people for their appearance but not for the color skin. (irony)

I thought discrimination was bad no matter what you are discriminating.. sorry I was wrong (irony)

Megan said...

Easy with the mockery there anonymous.

So, you're married right? Are you attracted to your husband?

Is there any reason that one could choose not to go on a date with another person without discriminating?

Anonymous said...

I think it is so interesting how this debate/conversation has gone and that some people still don't get it.

Apparently we just have different opinions about it.

Megan - I would like to know what your motives are for asking me what my motives are? And I would also like to know what your motives were for telling calvin that you don't like that he wanted to make out and then dump tori. Why would you want to express your opinion, especially if it is different than most of the people here?

I see you took the time to count the anonymous comments but did not take time to read them. I cleary explain my reasons and really don't feel like repeating myself.

Why do you think I'm upset? I'm just responding to negative feedback.

Anonymous said...

Megan - there is more than one anonymous. I can see that you still don't get it so I will explain further. I am nice like that, I like to help others.

Of course we all want to be attracted to the person we marry or date. But saying you will not date someone based only on outward appearance whether that is if they are black or you think they have a big nose or no butt or are ugly or whatever, just means that you are discriminating against a person based only on outward appearance.

You said: "Is there any reason that one could choose not to go on a date with another person without discriminating?"

Maybe I need to talk slower... when the discrimination is based only on outward appearance, than that is the same as saying you will not date a person only because they are black. Did you get that? Because I will say it again if that helps.

Let me put it this way...

You obviously think you are right, so good for you.

Anonymous said...

If you are going to get on a soap box and tell everyone about why they shouldn't be racist, prejudist or discriminating against a group of individuals, then don't make an uneducated reference that it is o.k. to be prejudice towards people that are ugly. If it was just a joke, then fine. But I really believe jake feels that way, otherwise he wouldn't continue this somewhat heated debate.

For those that really don't seem to understand what discrimination or prejudism are, you can click here.

to learn more.

Mormon Bachelor Pad said...

Ok, now. All of the Anonymous people who think that all types of prejudice are the same and equally horrible... I gotta know something.

Would you date a guy who's on parole for 10 different counts of Rape and Rape of a Child?

Cause if you wouldn't... doesn't that make you prejudice? You're discriminating against convicted sex offenders, right? They deserve as much of a chance as one of your ugly friends, don't they?

"But wait, Calvin! That's totally different!"

Is it? You're discriminating for previous criminal behavior and I'm discriminating because of lopsided eyeballs and a cauliflower ear. Either way, it's discrimination.


ps I love this debate. It gives me pee shivers when I read new anonymous comments.

Sam, The Nanti-SARRMM said...

I'm only commenting because of how hilariously out of context the argument has gotten.
Anonymous 9:19: Honestly? You're playing the racism card? If I were an employer and didn't hire someone cause they're ugly, that is wrong. If I don't ask out a girl cause I think she's ugly and I barely know her? That happens all the time and is understandable. It happens on both sides of the gender aisle, not just us pig-headed men.

Yes, personality counts, but that is harder to discern. Realistically, if I decide to ask out some random girl on campus, she is going to be someone I am attracted to. If we get along in the first few minutes, then I'll ask her out to get to know her more. Hang out with her. Well assuming our personalities mesh.
If the girl is ugly, I am not likely to strike up a random conversation with someone in passing, no matter how great her personality because I don't know that.

So basically the only way I'm going to ask out a girl I don't find attractive at first is if they are in my ward, class or work and I get to know them a bit to be attracted her on other levels. Which means it most likely will be a month or so of getting to know said girl before asking her out.

If that is wrong, then you better start up a lawsuit against all single americans, because we're all guilty of it.

Not all prejudice is bad, and if you're ugly I'm probably not going to talk to you while randomly passing by. That's just how things work. Deal.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous you are awesome!!

Anonymous said...

Megan - I am sorry for being so condescending in my response. I know that I am the only person in the world that thinks the way I do. I get a little riled up I guess.

It was silly of me to call Jake out and then to go and insinuate that you were stupid or slow. I know that is not okay either.

Even though it is a little different, you know, because Jake actually used a cruel word like "Ugly" and instead of calling you "stupid" I passively aggressively said things like "I will explain further. I'm nice like that, I like to help others." and "Maybe I need to talk slower..." and "Did you get that? I will say it again..."

So, obviously I can see now that I am just as bad. I am cruel to others. I think my opinion is the only one that matters, and I am here to make sure everyone knows that.

Sorry Megan, and sorry everyone.

Still... black and ugly are the same thing, when it comes to discrimination.

Anonymous said...

Megan - I am sorry for being so condescending in my response. I know that I am the only person in the world that thinks the way I do. I get a little riled up I guess.

It was silly of me to call Jake out and then to go and insinuate that you were stupid or slow. I know that is not okay either.

Even though it is a little different, you know, because Jake actually used a cruel word like "Ugly" and instead of calling you "stupid" I passively aggressively said things like "I will explain further. I'm nice like that, I like to help others." and "Maybe I need to talk slower..." and "Did you get that? I will say it again..."

So, obviously I can see now that I am just as bad. I am cruel to others. I think my opinion is the only one that matters, and I am here to make sure everyone knows that.

Sorry Megan, and sorry everyone.

Still... black and ugly are the same thing, when it comes to discrimination.

Megan said...

Haha, wow you are seriously defensive. Okay, we do disagree.

I have put the "in" below in brackets to point out that as you said: "maybe you should go back to school and learn to read and write."

You said it better than anyone.

"going [in] a date with someone black and beautiful is ok, black and ugly is bad. So better not be ugly..."

The fact that there has to be an "and" attached shows that there is a major difference.

Also, you said.

"I thought discrimination was bad no matter what you are discriminating."

Perhaps, as you said to Tara: "maybe you should take a class on that while you're at it."

"Discrimination" is not bad. Discrimination is simply making a distinction. "racial discrimination" is bad. "gender Discrimination" is bad. "familial discrimination", "religious discrimination" these are all bad.

I suppose you could make an argument that "appearance discrimination" is bad. That is what you have been doing, right? Coming back to the blog over and over and over again to make that argument.

Except "ugly" is a matter of opinion. "Black" is not. So, again they are very different.

Also, before you so openly condemn Calvin and Jake for their "cruel and abusive." Not once on this blog have they called someone in any story to their face fat, ugly, or stupid. They told us that they thought it.

Is thinking someone is black racial discrimination? No.

To condemn Calvin and Jake, you would have to never have thought that someone was ugly. Now you admitted that people were ugly... but if you never thought it how would you know. If you did think it, then you are the same as Calvin and Jake, making you a hypocrite which was one of the attacks you made against them. (irony)

Go ahead and keep pretending that you went on every date with every guy you found unattractive because you felt you count on a winning personality making the time you spent doing it worth your while.

To discriminate is to distinguish things and to use good judgment.

Sorry I get what you are saying. I am right, so thank you.


Matt said...

Um, I don't think that Jake is part any heated debate... unless there are extra comments.

I don't think he cares. Which is why he's my boy.

I'm not spending my money and 5 hours on a chick I'm not attracted to. Call it prejudice or ugliest or whatever...

Anonymous 2 said...

Megan please, go and read what discrimination means

Silly Little Man said...

And Anoners 2, please go soak your head in a barrel full of fish.

Anonymous 2 said...

So kind words from you, when you show such solid arguments to back your opinion then you should be totally right, no doubt about it :D

Anonymous said...

Nice try Jake – first, I don’t think that all discrimination is bad (there is more than one anonymous commenter). But I will answer because I get what they are saying.

Yes I would discriminate against someone for criminal behavior or character flaws...

And yes that is different because criminal behavior and outward appearance are different. Do I need to talk slow for you too? :)

The argument is still about outward appearance.

Anonymous said...

Megan -

Where do I start? You are pretty defensive yourself so I guess I have a lot to answer here. You are also guilty of being condescending and returning again and again to make your argument. (irony)

First, I am glad to see that you finally read the comments. Now you at least make sense, sort of.

There is more than one anonymous, so the quotes you are referring to do not all pertain to me. I did say she should go back to school because she was being incredibly rude. I have no problem throwing attacks back at someone that throws them at me. If you want to play hardball, let’s go. I love a good debate.

Yes, I agree that there is good and bad discrimination, I did not make that argument. And yes, thank you, you could argue that it is called “appearance discrimination”.

The argument is not “thinking” someone is black or ugly, discrimination is a behavior (or action) based on prejudice.

You can say that “ugly” and “black” are not the same, but that argument is irrelevant, because they are both about outward appearance. Stating that “ugly” is a matter of opinion does not change anything. “Black” could be a matter of opinion, if you aren’t totally sure of the skin color or ethnicity. Someone might even be perceived as black but just be really tan.

I never said that jake was a hypocrite, I said he was contradicting himself. Do I need to define those terms too?

You said: “Go ahead and keep pretending that you went on every date with every guy you found unattractive because you felt you count on a winning personality making the time you spent doing it worth your while.”

I don’t know why you are arguing about this. Apparently looks are all that matter to you. I am not pretending anything.

They are not just “thinking” someone is fat or ugly, they are talking about, on a public blog. I do believe that mocking people who are perceived as fat or ugly is verbal abuse, even behind their back. Even if that person doesn’t know someone is saying that about them. If someone mocks you “behind your back”, is that o.k.? I really don't want to get in a debate about verbal abuse next.

How about this, go find a dictionary, and when you understand the terms I am referring to, then we can talk. If you don't like poeple being condescending to you, than don't act that way to them. If you want to act that way to me, I really don't care. It makes the debate more interesting.

Anonymous said...

Oh sorry Calvin, I thought you were Jake. And I still freaking love you, even when you argue (except for when you talk about fat or ugly girls).

Anonymous said...

Sam, out of context?

Jake said in the post, "Now, if he's ugly or stupid... well that's a completely different story. There are so many petty reasons to disqualify a prospective mate that doing it because he's "Black" is just silly. Notice also that "ugly" and "beautiful" are not racist, maybe your Mom and Grandparents shouldn't be either."

Jake is the one that brought up the "ugly" argument and in a way really started the debate by saying, "ugly and beautiful are not racist".

Nobody is saying they are racist or "playing the racism card". Obvisously "ugly" or "beautiful" are not about race. But they are about outward appearance.

And a lawsuit? That doesn't make any sense. Why would I want to sue someone for using their freedom? I would rather debate it in the MBP comment box. It will probably reach a lot more people that way.

You said, "Not all prejudice is bad"
True, but prejudice against ugly people is.

Tinkerbell said...

Good post, but you might want to read this:

The following talk was delivered by the First Presidency of the Mormon Church on August 17th, 1951:

"The attitude of the church regarding Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not the matter of a declaration of policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the church from the days of its organization, to the effect that negroes may become members of the church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.

The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operations of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why a skin of blackness? It comes as a consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the other children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then their curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and receive all of the blessings which we now have."

The doctrine of the church regarding the negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of the spirits in the preexistence has some effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those that maintained their first estate; and the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood, is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in the deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."

Sorry, it's the truth.

Tinkerbell said...

Brigham Young said some pretty damning things – quotes from the Journal of Discourses:

“..Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” – JoD: vol.10 p. 110: (March 8, 1863)

Anonymous 3 said...

I can copy and paste, as well:


"First, the Journal of Discourses is not a source for official Church doctrine (See The Seer and Journal of Discourses). Second, prejudice against Blacks, or anyone else for that matter, is strictly against the teachings of the LDS Church. (See Are Mormons Prejudiced Against Blacks?)

Third, you are quoting this 1863 impromptu discourse out of historical context. For example, in this same discourse (on the very next page), President Young said:

"For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)"

Read more by copying and pasting the link at the top.

Sam, The Nanti-SARRMM said...

Tink, you also have to take into consideration what else was said.

David O. McKay said: "From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man." - Emphasis mine.

Also in 1963, Spencer W. Kimball said, "The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation."

George Albert Smith, in 1949 said in a declaration, "The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time."

And in 1954 President David O. McKay taught, "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it."

The one constant is that African Americans could not receive the priesthood. The obvious then is question who do we believe, the statements of earlier Church authorities, or the statements of President McKay and others. As Anonymous #3 points out, the Journal of Discourses is no way doctrine, and is only of interest to know what they said.

So if we consider President Brigham Young and all those chosen to be prophets as chosen of God, the obviously it means that President Young only knew to rescind the priesthood from Blacks, and not the divine why, and thus had to guess as to why. Historical political atmosphere is more than enough reason to see why African Americans were not allowed to receive the priesthood.

And so as has been quoted, it never has been Church doctrine that African Americans have been cursed. Sure some authorities speculated about it, but it was never doctrine.

And also this post is about ugliness being discriminatory which some anonymous peeps say is bad.

So quit yer bellyaching.

Kellie said...

Um.. I'm not sure how these comments relate, but my two cents..

That girl that some guys blow off as being too ugly to date, will be absolutely beautiful to someone else. So who effin' cares.

Anywho..I don't know much about the Church other than what I've been told by the missionaries, but I find some of the comments interesting and informative.

"I definitely think that any guy who you can describe as "Nice guy, returned missionary, college graduate, and etc. good qualities." whether he's black, white, yellow, or blue deserves a date without prejudice"

That pretty much says it all to me. What difference does skin color make if the person is good? You did a great job at answering the email

BD said...

PLEASE... if you are going to comment and want to remain anonymous at least come up with a fake name to post under so the rest of us can sort through your illogical arguments in a reasonable amount of time. Here's how you do it: (1) under choose an identity click 'Name/URL' (2) type your fake name (i.e., ugly duckling) into the box labeled 'Name' (3) don't type anything into the 'URL' (4) post your comment anonymously.

Frustrated said...

Face it, most all of the early church leaders were extremely racist and prejudiced. How can what Brigham Young said not be doctrine when he was a major FOUNDER of this whole church??

He is the namesake of our beloved BYU, not to mention revered as a PROPHET of GOD! Why are we supposed to take some of what he said as pure doctrine and ignore the things that are no longer politically correct? We never get these answers in Sunday school.

Anonymous said...

Frustrated -

you said, "How can what Brigham Young said not be doctrine when he was a major FOUNDER of this whole church??"

Everything that the prophet said was not doctrine. That is even true today of the prophet and apostles. Even the book titled "Mormon Doctrine" is not completely considered doctrine by the church. Even books written by other modern apostles like: "Christ and the New Covenant" by Jeffry R. Holland, are not considered doctrine, but rather his own opinions and views. Which may seem surprising to some because it is a gospel centered book.

Today the prophet and apostles make statements like the family a procolamation and the living Christ and all of their signatures are found on it. That is how we know that particular view is doctrine. They are all in agreement on it and it is an official statement approved by the prophet and apostles (not just the view of one person).

Looking at the words of Brigham Young through our perspective today, does make his statements seem racist and prejudiced. Once again, that is why we know that even prophets are not perfect. God did not tell him to think that way, those were his own opinions.

At the time it was politically correct to have opinions like that.

Since there are no perfect people on the earth, and most people most likely had those opinions in those days, Brigham Young was still a very righteous and good person.

Anonymous said...

Sam, good point. Yer funny! :)

Anonymous said...

Frustrated -

I have thought more about your comment and wanted to add to what I have said.

I appreciate your honest comment. I think it is important for people to feel they have a place they can go to find answers to concerns or difficult questions. Even if it is not in Sunday School, I think questions are good, even the tough ones, and it is important to voice them.

God is relying on imperfect humans to lead his church. That is one reason that Joseph Smith was such an important and key individual in restoring the church, because he was a young boy of 14. He did not have preconceived ideas about the world and things. Brigham Young on the other hand was an adult, a business man, had experienced life a little more. Brigham Young had likely already formed many of his own opinions and views before he was even called as a prophet, including his opinions and views regarding other races. I still think he was the best man for the job to carry on the mantle and responsibility of "prophet" after Joseph Smith died.

Understanding the character of God can also clarify why things happen the way they do. God is not about force or control. He allows us to experience life and learn and progress on our own.

God does not always tap the prophet on the shoulder (figuratively speaking), and say "grab a pen I have something to tell you."

As was pointed out earlier, the word of wisdom was given after Joseph Smith inquired about it. He received that law of health many years before the rest of the world understood that smoking, for example, was bad for one's health.

My point is that Brigham Young was not perfect, maybe he was not in tune enough to question if his opinions about race were correct because those views were socially and politically acceptable at the time. Even though from our perspective, some of his views may seem racist.

The very church itself was restored because Joseph Smith inquired about it.

Another character is that God is unchanging. While man's views and opinions are changing and progressing. For example, at one time man believed that the world was flat.

But I believe God wants it that way, because that is how we learn and grow and progress. Once again he does not force or control us, he allows us to learn on our own. We have our own will and agency.

The modern prophets spoke out against the statements about blacks being cursed (see Sam's comment above). Another example of progression in the church is the book "The Doctrine and Covenants," which is considered scripture in the LDS church. It was not always the doctrine and covenants, at one time it was called the book of commandments. Later it became accepted as doctrine (or scripture) by the leaders at the time. The church does progress and evolve and change, with the progression of humans.

The LDS church believes that it was Jesus Christ that said that the church was the only true and living church and the most correct on the earth. That is not to say that other churches are not good, or do not have good people. Some of the best people that I know do not belong to the LDS church and are in my own family. There is a lot of good in other churches. We believe that our church was restored to the earth, and that it is the same church that Christ established when he was on the earth, that is why we repeatedly say it is the only true church on the earth. Not to put other churches or people down.

I do believe that our church is the "most correct" on the earth. That does not mean that everything is perfect, it will continue to progress, just like we will.

My comments are my own point of view.

Frustrated said...

Anon 10:56: Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful post. I appreciate it. The sad thing is, the LDS Church has some very real skeletons in its closet. I wish it wasn't so but unfortunately my personal study of Church history has led me to this conclusion. I do respect your view point and I believe you are following true principles for your life.

Sam, The Nanti-SARRMM said...

Frustrated: Skeletons? Maybe. Depends on how you look at it. At most, no more than the nation.

Take, for example, the Church's practice of polygamy and the persecution thereof. Men were jailed simply for believing, the right to vote (in Idaho) was stripped away and life was made horrible for many Church members and it's leaders.

So given the levels of persecution they had with polygamy, and in Missouri, and given their views that that Slavery should be abolished (Joseph Smith said that many times), for temporal reasons, the Church didn't allow African Americans to hold the priesthood for the survival of the Church.

Freeing the slaves, at the time, was considered radical in many places. So if there were no restrictions, then the unthinkable would have occurred in the mid 1800's, black and white men being treated on the same playing level, as equals.

Do you really think that the Nation was ready for that? Do you think that no more amounts of persecution would have incurred?

That's my viewpoint at least. And honestly, if you have troubles with being a member of the Church for that reason (among others?), then what about your standing as a citizen of this nation? Sure, the LDS Church didn't treat African Americans as equals in regards to the priesthood, but with slavery, lynchings, jim crow laws, segregation and everything that happened in our nation... Basically if you have no compunctions about being a citizen of this nation, you should not have any for being a member of the LDS Church.

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of discussion about the history of the church denying african american males the priesthood, but there is another group of people that the church still currently doesn't allow to hold the priesthood, women.

I grew up being told that this was because women were given the ability to bear children, and as a teen I was offended when non-members questioned my church denying women the right to the priesthood.

My problem now with this is that denying women the priesthood also denies them the opportunity to any real authority or decision making position. Women have no power in the church.

I wonder why as a teen I did not think it wrong that every leader or person in an authoritative position in my church would always have to be a man.

Even a simple task like blessing the sacrament was something my male peers were capable of doing, but not me, cause I'm a girl.

There are other ways the church seems to treat women as inferior to men, ex: men being able to be sealed for time & eternity to more than one woman, but a woman not being allowed the same to more than one man.

-New Anonymous from who commented a few days ago

Bad Horse said...

The the most recent Anonymous, I have seen some cases where a deceased woman is sealed to two deceased men, men she had married in life in which they died or something. It doesn't happen often, and is rare, but it has happened.

Not to detract from your point about women not being able to hold church leadership positions beyond Relief Society and all that.

KTP said...

Sorry to totally hijack this thread but anonymous @ 8:31 raises a good point. I found an article about this exact issue. Here is part of it:

Women, Priesthood and Culture
By: Guest - January 12, 2009
By: Kevin Barney

"I was on my mission in 1978 when black men were given the priesthood. So I remember those times, but I was not a mature adult during the ban period. I can recall defending the ban, by pointing to how only certain men were given the priesthood in the OT (the lineages of Levi and Aaron), for instance. So, I argued, there was a precedent for not extending the priesthood to all worthy men. (Of course, that analogy breaks down since few of us priesthood holders today likely are pure patrilineal descendants of Levi ourselves. So obviously we’re not limiting ourselves by that standard.)

As I look back at that situation with the advantage of maturity, hindsight and the substantial Mormon scholarship on the issue (pioneered by Bush, Mauss and Bringhurst and continued since by others), it is abundantly clear to me today that not giving blacks the priesthood was all a horrible mistake. The party line today of the Church is that “we don’t know” why blacks couldn’t be given the priesthood, which is probably the best the Church can do as an institution, but I don’t buy that line at all. I think we know exactly why. Brigham Young and other Church leaders absorbed the attitudes of the day concerning blacks, and in particular the Protestant apologias for justifying the institution of slavery from the Bible (curse of Cain and so forth, to which we added our own homegrown notion of lack of valiancy in the Preexistence). There’s nothing surprising about that....

I raise this because, perhaps influenced by the case of blacks and the priesthood, my own preference would be for us to give women the priesthood. I know nobody has asked me, and this is just a little ark-steadying exercise. But just as not giving blacks the priesthood strikes me now as so obviously a culturally conditioned response, I tend to see not giving women the priesthood from a very similar perspective.

This is a tougher issue, because there appears to be scriptural warrant for not giving women the priesthood. ...

But here’s the thing–I personally believe that the scriptures *themselves* were written in a certain cultural context. So we have to ask whether women not being given the priesthood in the scriptures is reflective of the unchanging will of Almighty God, or whether it is simply a reflection of the historically lesser sphere accorded to women in religious life at that time. Were women not given the priesthood because God wanted it that way? Or were they not given the priesthood because men assumed from their ambient culture that God wanted it that way?"


Bad Horse said...

I would say look to Joseph Smith, again. Although he didn't say all African-Americans should receive the priesthood, he did give a couple of them the priesthood.

So, when women of the Church came together and presented to Joseph an outline of a woman's organization, Joseph took it up an improved upon it through revelation. If God meant them to hold the priesthood, Joseph Smith would have said something to that affect.

I would like to add one last additional thought. How is the priesthood used and managed? D&C 121:41-42 gives an answer; by love unfeigned, by meekness, gentleness, etc. Stuff men all need to improve upon more, generally speaking, than women.

The priesthood is there to help men grow, to stretch them to their limits. If women received the priesthood, they'd be so much more effective at it and valiant in its use that they'd put all Mormon men to shame. Look at Sister Missionaries, most sister missionaries are far better missionaries than Elders, because of their indomitable spirit. Men need it to grow, and if women get it, in my opinion, then men will be left behind in the dust.

Anonymous said...

So in a nutshell, it's all about the ego boost for men?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:31

This is a great question. I will give an answer now and think a while on it, then if I think of more to say I will come back again later.

First, it helps to understand that the Priesthood is the power and authority to act in the name of God. It is not meant to dominate or have power over anyone or make them feel inferior.

Men and women both have different roles in this life. Because God is a God of order, he has set it up so that men have the role of "presiding" in families and in the church. This is not meant to make women feel inferior or that they have no authority or power. I believe it is simply meant to bring order and organization to the church. We may not fully know or understand the answer to "why" but God is all knowing and has a purpose for doing things a certain way.

God took the rib from which he made Eve, from Adam's side, not from his head or feet (that is not a direct quote, I am paraphrasing from memory). But this shows that Men and Women are believed to be equal partners in life (side by side, not one above the other).

You said: "every leader or person in an authoritative position in my church would always have to be a man."

Actually there is the General Relief Society presidency and general board and the General Young Women presidency and General Primary Presidency, each with a general board that are only ran by women. They have authority to make decisions over those organizations, just like there are males that have the authority to make decisions over the male groups in the church. And they meet with and give input on a regular basis with the males that are also in authoritative positions in the church and they work together on the issues of the church.

And not just on the general level (in head quarters in salt lake city), but women also preside over those organizations on the stake and ward level.

The Lord even reminds those that hold the Priesthood that that power is not to be used with unrighteous dominion. And if it is, that power is taken away. I think God was very wise in doing this to prevent men from trying to dominate anyone.

Those that hold the Priesthood cannot do anything with that authority for themselves, it is only used to bless and serve others. In reality, the Priesthood gives men the opportunity to serve others, not to have authority over them.

My roles as a women in this life are to be an equal partner to my husband (or if not married, I think that also applies to men and women being equal), to be a mother, to nurture, and love and care for my family. I am every bit part of the decision making process in my family as my husband is.

As a women, I have served in many presidencies in the church, which means I was given "authority" to preside over and make decisions about that group.

I don't believe that the church treats women as "inferior" based on the fact that men are able to be sealed to more than one women and women not being allowed the same to more than one man. Again, I believe it is just the order of things.

Anonymous said...

In response to BAD HORSE:

"The early history of the Church is rife with instances of women operating within the capacity of what we now deem as priesthood functions. The temple ordinance of the endowment contains fairly overt language (for those English majors among us) that both men AND women have divine futures operating in priesthood capacities. Women today administer temple ordinances.

I see no legitimate affirmative reason as to why women should not receive the priesthood. I think the argument often made is similar to that of, thank you for bringing this up Kevin, Blacks and the priesthood. The same similar bogus unsubstantiated doctrinal justifications are offered against women that were offered against Blacks. I’ll never forget Bruce R. McConkie’s infamous Mormon Doctrine quote that “blacks would never receive the priesthood because they were of the tribe of Cain, and therefore were without the ability of holding God’s priesthood.” I think the justification which personally pisses me off the most is that “Women don’t need the priesthood because they are so righteous already and men need it because they’re so frail.” Such completely ridiculous arguments are merely intended to temporarily satisfy the obvious discomfort with a clearly erroneous and unjustifiable stance.

It is SO important that we speak out about this issue, and ask questions. That’s what our gospel is based on. If Joseph Smith had simply accepted the status quo and not spoken out and not said “Hey, this doesn’t seem right” we wouldn’t have the gospel we have today and the gospel our Heavenly Father intends us to have. This issue REALLY started to dig at me around the first year of my marriage. My sweet wife and I have tried to understand this topic, studied the scriptures, prayed, and thought about it in the temple. The result I’ve come to is that, unfortunately, this (as Kevin stated above) is not God’s will, but rather is man’s construct of a gospel influenced through the cultural lense of our time.

There’s really no justification for women not operating within the priesthood, and I don’t believe for ONE MOMENT that God would deny one of his children to utilize this wonderful gift for its proper purpose simply because that child has a little different plumbing. Hopefully, our Church will recognize that women holding the priesthood is perfectly compatible with the Gospel, and we as a Church will recognize the blessing of our Sisters sharing in the priesthood."

Comment by Jace — January 13, 2009 @ 1:10 am (FMH)

Anonymous said...

I am Anon 10:36 and these other comments just appeared so I have more to say.

Bad Horse, that is a great point. As a women, in any calling that I have had in the church, in my opinon I think women are so much better at running things than men. I am not saying that to put down men, women are just great at being organized and being in tune with the spirit. I truly believe that the Priesthood is meant to help men learn to be leaders and grow as a human being.

KTP, I just read your comment, so give me a minute to digest it a little.

Wao said...

Who knew Mormons could get so wild on the message boards?

I didn't read all the responses because I was starting to feel a little dirty from all the nastiness.

I will not equate color based racism with general shallowness in dating (ugly-->beautiful ratings and all that). However, race and perceptions of beauty are linked historically:

In mainstream white culture (colonizer cultures like Spanish, Portugese, and English in North America, South America, Africa) and amongst people of color, skin color is most definitely linked to the assessment of beauty. Many people of color will tell you about the light skin/dark skin thing (Japanese, Latino, Black, to name a few). Light skin=beautiful and dark skin = ugly. This faulty assessment is still a part of many communities even if unspoken.

Racism makes people feel like less than they are and reinforces the mainstream or conquering culture as the winners, the beautiful, the best. So--that's why little black girls in sociological research studies typically picked white dolls over dolls that looked like them. The light skinned doll with the smooth straight hair was ideal. Ask a black woman about her hair--about natural versus relaxers versus weaves and you can see a whole sad history of historical trauma and beauty ideals played out in hair products.

Granted, the race/color and beauty linkage is no longer as absolute as it used to be. Now you can see women in fashion modeling in every shade. Still, try to find beauty products for very dark skin and you might be out of luck. Hence, beauty is not for you, girls, move along.

****I know that the MBP camp DID NOT EQUATE beauty with color. In fact, they separated the two strictly, perhaps too strictly as to ignore the historical (and for some, contemporary) linkage of beauty and skin color.

However, I think it is apt to point out that considerations of color and what that means for assessing beauty does play out in many people's minds (perhaps unconsciously) when they they are sizing up potential sexual partners (or as LDS have it, wives and husbands).

Still--discerning judgment keeps us safe (Jake!--come on, criminal sex offenders? Jeez--that's something worthy of concern and goes way beyond the scope of the physical appearance based parameters of this debate), so we use what we know about the person's deeds, behavior, language to decide if we can handle his.her pasts and current dealings.

Seeing as so many women are won over by minor celebrities like guys in prison, these women do put past criminal behavior aside in order to marry. Therefore: not prejudiced against convicts. Go team.

I wonder what the minor celebrity caveat (cough-cough bloggers) will mean for MBP writers. Only time will tell. :-)
Please Mormons, don't hurt me. *ducks

Anonymous said...

OK, I'm back.

in response to Anonymous 10:44 -

You have brought up a tough issue here.

I am curious what your opinion is about the quote you are giving.

There are several points made in the article, so I will recap them then give my opinion. First, his key points are:

1) according to sacred temple ordinances, women have divine futures in operating in priesthood capacities.

2) he feels there is no reason why women should not be given the Priesthood he does not agree with the arguments given and quotes:

a) Bruce R. McConkie, author of Mormon Doctrine.

b) The typical responses he has heard from members of the church that women don’t need the priesthood… which pisses him off.

3) He wants people to speak out about it and ask questions.

4) the “result” that he has come to is that it is not God’s will.

My thoughts:

1) we don’t know if that is true or not, but if women have divine futures in operating in priesthood capacities, who are we to say that the time for that is now? Maybe it is intended to be in the future, or the next life, or for now just in the temple.

2) For the sake of argument, I will go along with his first point which is that women have a future in operating in priesthood capacities. If he truly believes that is true, then it is not about whether or not women should be given the priesthood, but when.

a) the book “Mormon Doctrine,” is not considered Mormon Doctrine as the title claims.
b) I think that the argument that women don’t “need” the priesthood, as much as men do, is a great argument. There is a time and a place for everything. What would the outcome be if women held the priesthood, and visa versa. When you look at both options, for the time being, I think the outcome is better for men to only hold the priesthood at this time. I truly think that the purpose of that for this life is for men to learn and grow. And this argument of needing or not needing to hold the priesthood at a particular time, won’t matter if women will hold the priesthood in the future (as he makes in his first point).

3) What is the purpose of speaking out about it and asking questions? I do think questions are good and important… but he seems to have more of an agenda than to just find answers. He seems to not only want to speak out about it, but to bring about some sort of change.

4) Personal revelation is intended for you as an individual or the people you have stewardship over (as a parent that would be your children, or as a bishop your ward members). If God wants there to be a change in the way the church is run, he will do so through the prophet, not an individual that feels he has received a revelation that it is against the will of God. I am not saying that the answer he received is right or wrong, we really don’t know.

What is wrong with “not knowing” the answer to something? There are a lot of things in life that we do not know the answer to. My kids come up with some pretty deep questions all of the time like, “who made God?” and I usually just have to say, "I don’t know". I think that is the best response if we really don’t know, instead of making up something just to satisfy somebody’s impatient desire to know now.

I feel that the answers will come to us someday, and if it really pertained to our salvation then the Lord would make it known to us. And he would do it through the prophet.

This was very interesting, thank you!

TechieGirl said...

Wow! I just want to say that everyone's posts have been pretty interesting to read. Thanks for giving me some things to think about today.

Wao said...

Yeah--I was up late reading. I think that women in the priesthood (I was raised catholic) is up to that particular religion. If women within the church, whichever church it is, decide to question and challenge church policies on women's roles in the church, then that's where the change should take seed. Catholic nuns gained ground in making their habits more reasonable (especially for those in hot climates) and in organizing within the church. I know a nun that ran a church carnival and organized a whole community of mexican catholic immigrants in her small jurisdiciton. The Priest she was technically under (pardon the pun), wanted to take her bank accounts. HE was always on the money grab from other catholic orgs. She fought him off and still is very successful at mobilizing her community....

So far as LDS goes, women play a huge role and should be given credit and more responsibilities for decision making. Again, though, that's going to have to come from within. Times are changing...

Bad Horse said...

Isn't it taught that women hold the priesthood through their husbands, or is that one of those Mormon myth things?

Also, I would like to point out that I'm not sure what difference it would make if women served as General Authorities. The prophet doesn't decide to do something and then does it, any decision that the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency decide upon requires a unanimous vote.

And, as has been pointed out, the Prophet and the apostles meet regularly with the Relief Society Presidency and other presidencies. I'm sure they receive some sort of input from them as well.

Anonymous 1:10, the reason women don't hold the priesthood is because God commands it so. If it was not so, the Proclamation to the family would be written differently. And God would not allow women to not have the priesthood because they have different functions and roles in the church, because they have separate responsibilities.

If it is the error of man, then, as I said, the Proclamation of the Family and other official Church statements would include women in being able to hold the priesthood.

Also, you cannot say is men's prejudice, because women in Utah were given the right to vote in 1870. (Becoming disenfranchised in 1887 by the federal government.)

Sam, The Nanti-SARRMM said...

I don't think we can believe Bad Horse. He's the Thoroughbred of Sin! He has a horrible Death Whinny! Anything he says is suspect. Blast him and his Evil League of Evil!


Ok, I have nothing to contribute. All seriousness is lost on me. I blame the person who posted as 'Bad Horse'. Don't mind me or my outrageous laughter.

Anonymous said...

Bad Horse - I am put off slightly by your comment "the Prophet and the apostles meet regularly with the Relief Society Presidency and other presidencies. I'm sure they receive SOME sort of input from them" as if this should be enough for all us women.

You yourself said the first presidency with the Quorum of the 12 make decisions requiring a unanimous vote. So how many of those people are women? How many of the 70?

I realize that women can be relief society presidents, but they cannot hold any position of authority over men. They cannot be bishops, stake presidents, prophets, or even do something as simple as baptizing or blessing their own children.

It is insulting to tell women they don't have the priesthood because they are already so good and don't need it.

Also, Anonymous 12:28: you said "What is wrong with not knowing the answer to something? There are a lot of things in life that we do not know the answer to. My kids come up with some pretty deep questions all of the time"
Do you really see this as the same as your kids asking you questions you can't answer? Should we say "Well as a woman I can't hold the priesthood which seems pretty sexist, and there really isn't a good explanation why.. but I don't need to know. I'm sure there's a good reason."
Should african americans have said the same thing when they were not allowed to vote or have equal rights? "I'm sure there is a good reason"

- from the girl who is still wondering why she couldn't bless the sacrament when all those "less righteous" boys could.

Nikki said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nikki said...

I have been chomping at the bit on this thread as I have had no internet for the last couple of days. But what drives me seriously CARAZZY is when people interject political issues with religion. Religious institutions can and should have opinions on societal issues, but to treat a religion like it is under the same obligation as what society deems appropriate is just ludicrous. This is a religion not the United States government nor is it a place of employment. I am a HUGE feminist and I have no problem not holding the Priesthood, but I understand its origins. Any woman who wants the Priesthood for "authoritative" purposes or to be "over" people does not understand the Priesthood nor do they want it for righteous purposes other than to "rule over others" and this is what I am hearing here.
Stop treating the church like you can picket and protest like a left winged liberal and demand equality. This is God's church and if you don't believe that, then that is your problem, not church policy. God tells us how things are run not the other way around.
I am woman hear me roar works in the political arena, not in religion. Stop confusing the two.
The church would be no truer if it allowed female Bishops.
Also, in the symbolic scheme of things, last I checked God is male and his power is gender specific. When you act in the name of Christ you MUST be a male, because HE IS. When performing ordinances in the Temple, WOMEN get baptized for women and men for men. Gender matters. Demanding the Priesthood for "equality" is nonsensical both symbolically, literally and spiritually. Try to understand things from and eternal more spiritual perspective vs. what the ACLU or NOW is demanding.
Let religion be a religion without static from trends in the outside world. Religion is supposed to differ from worldly teachings. Women wanting the Priesthood is nothing more than women seeking personal power and that goes against who and what Christ is and it is his power you are seeking...very contradictory.

KTP said...

Right on 'girl who is still wondering why she couldn't bless the sacrament..."

Ever since I joined the Church I have felt that there were spiritual abilities I could never attain in this life.

When I was younger I thought that maybe there was a way women would receive 'keys' after they were endowed and sealed in the temple. These keys are supposedly the power and ability to act in the name of God. Men receive them when they get the priesthood conferred upon them.

Alas, the time came when I was married and sealed to a wonderful man. No special keys were given to me. My best hope for eternal life according to the Church is that my husband will be valiant and worthy and he will lead me through the veil and into his kingdom where HE will become a God and he will create worlds. I will just be one of his wives. :(

This has been a good discussion. As women we should not have to feel like we are second class citizens. We are intelligent and powerful and so very capable of doing whatever we set our minds to. Thankfully I have a husband who adores me, respects me and never treats me as inferior to him. Sadly that is not the case for many of my female friends in the Church. We need to be the strong women we know we truly are and let the men in our lives know we expect to be treated as such.

[Hopping off my soapbox now]

Nikki said...

And one other say that women can give birth and have other responsibilities like the RS is true, but a stupid argument for women not holding the Priesthood. It is what it is, don't try to subsidize a perceived inequality with flowery nonsense. Like I said, this is a religion not a corporation.

Mormon Male said...

KTP: I think you point out something in your argument: "Thankfully I have a husband who adores me, respects me and never treats me as inferior to him."

If it is a question of feeling inferior, then it is the attitudes of many members that need to change, not gaining the priesthood.

And your best shot for having eternal life is not hoping your husband is valiant, it is being valiant yourself, doing all that you can do. Pinning exaltation on the efforts of another besides Christ is just plain silly.

And as far as the priesthood itself goes, take it! Less responsibility for me to go and serve then. I'll no longer be held to a higher degree of accountability if I exercise the priesthood incorrectly, cause I won't have it! Whoopee!

Anonymous said...

NIkki - I have no desire to be have some power over others. I am just trying to make the point that since the church only allows men the priesthood, and only lets men hold any REAL positions of authority, it treats women as inferior. This is why I personally don't believe it to be God's church.

I realize the church has the right to discriminate in any way it wants to, and it is not a political organization (except for when it gets involved in Prop 8.) They can do whatever they want.

I appreciate your honesty about the excuses being BS. This is part of why I no longer consider myself a member of the church, because its practices sometimes conflict with what my conscience tells me to be fair and right.

If there is a god he would expect me to follow what reasonably makes sense and what my conscience tells me.

I really am just trying to understand many who I am close to are completely okay with this blatant sexism.

- the girl without the priesthood

Bad Horse said...

Girl W/o the Priesthood: So the Relief Society presidencies are not positions of authority? So that means that, on the ward level, they do not help ensure that the temporal and emotional needs of the members of the ward or branch are met? That the General Relief Society Presidency doesn't have it's own headquarters. Does that mean Julie B. Beck is a liar because she said, "e work in partnership with priesthood leaders, who hold keys which give them authority to preside in the name of the Lord. We operate in the manner of the priesthood—which means that we seek, receive, and act on revelation; make decisions in councils; and concern ourselves with caring for individuals one by one."?

Huh, I guess working in partnership with priesthood leaders to see to the welfare of the membership of the church counts for nothing. Who knew!

Anonymous said...

Bad Horse - are you really trying to make the argument that women have equal positions in the church - Really?

You said you said yourself that the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 make decisions. All male.

"we work in partnership with priesthood leaders, who hold keys which give them authority to preside in the name of the Lord." - why can't women hold the keys themselves which give them this authority?

If women hold equal positions, can teenage girls choose to have their "interview" with the relief society president instead of having to go tell the bishop, a man, about intimate details of their life?

Will my past relief society presidents sit on the panel that judges me with my bishops after my death?

-girl w/o priesthood

Bad Horse said...

When you're set apart, you're given the keys and authority to act in your calling. You don't need continual priesthood support for that.

As for the interview and being a judge, touché. My question is, do you want people confessing their sins to you as you act as a Judge of Israel, and help them in the repentance process? Is that what you want, really?

Or do you just want to sit with the men and to help make decisions because society says it is not appropriate for men to do that themselves?

However, if you persuade enough women of the church that it is their prerogative and right to hold the priesthood too, and petition the church enough, I'm sure you'll get the priesthood if you ask enough times. That worked for Martin Harris, it will work for you too.

just me said...

BH: Maybe if you had to spend your whole life "working in partnership" with women, i.e. being less than them, you would understand.

This was one issue that caused me disaffection from the church but the big ones were

1. This unknown gem:

2. Everything said here:

3. And the fact that when I faithfully wrote out my checks to help feed the hungry and clothe the naked, my money was really being sent here:

and here:

Anonymous said...

Bad Horse - I don't talk my friends who are women in the church too much about how I feel since they all seem to be pretty happy, so don't worry, I won't be trying to persuade too many ladies to think they are equals.

No, I personally do not want to be the one to judge others, of course I don't really think that is how it is going to work anyways.

I don't think society has taught me that I deserve to be equal to men, its more likely that society taught me the opposite.

Actually, even though my parents raised me in a religion that I feel treats women unequally, they always made sure I knew that I was just as valuable as all the men who would someday be bishops, stake presidents, ect.. so you might have to blame some faithful and active mormons for my wild ideas about equality.

-girl who really doesn't want the priesthood

Anonymous said...

in response to "just me"

So what is your purpose in bringing all of this up? Are you really seeking answers to those questions or just trying to throw out contraversy and maybe take a few people down with you?

just me said...

Here is just a partial listing of all of the companies owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

Deseret Management Corporation -
Beneficial Financial Group -
Bonneville International -
Bonneville Communications -
Bonneville Interactive Services
Bonneville Satellite -
35 Radio Stations
1 Television Station (KSL)
Deseret Book -
Excel Entertainment -
Deseret Morning News -
Hawaii Reserves -
Polynesian Cultural Center (PCC) - and
La'ie Shopping Center
La'ie Park
La'ie Cemetary
Hukilau Beach Park
La'ie Water Company
La'ie Treatment Works (sewer) -
Temple Square Hospitality - and
Weddings (JSMB and Lion House)
The Inn at Temple Square -
Lion House Pantry -
The Roof Restaurant -
The Garden Restaurant -
Passages Restaurant -
Zions Securities Corporation -

Farm Management Corporation (commericial farms and agricultural properties)
Deseret Land and Livestock
200,000 acres of land in Rich, Morgan and Weber counties (Utah)
Sun Ranch (Martin's Cove)
Deseret Ranches of Florida (Orlando) (largest ranch in Florida)
Deseret Farms of California
Rolling Hills (Idaho)
West Hills Orchards (Elberta, Utah)
Cactus Lane Ranch (Arizona)

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CPB)
Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Deseret Trust Company
LDS Family Services
Property Reserves Inc. (PRI)
Ensign Peak Advisors -

Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators (DMBA) -

Brigham Young University (BYU) -
BYU - Idaho -
BYU - Hawaii -
LDS Business College -

Did you know about all of that? Because I certainly didn't up until a few months ago.

So anonymous that wants to know, my purpose is opening up the eyes of those who want to know more about what they are a part of.

Also, please enlighten me if you could about how my funding the building of the City Creek Mall, La'ie Shopping Center, or Beneficial Financial Group insurance company helps further the Kingdom of God, 'cause I'd really like to know.

Especially during those years when I ate Ramen noodles and PB&J sandwiches and didn't turn my heat on in the winter because I wanted to make sure I paid tithing first...yeah, I feel great knowing that there is going to be a 3 billion dollar mall in Salt Lake City thanks to my sacrifice.

Bad said...

Just Me - Get your facts right; all funding for the mall came from Property Reserve and other commercial interests. No tithing went to building the mall.

just me said...

Ok, so where did Property Reserve get its funding?

Bad Horse said...

Not from tithing. It came through other real-estate ventures.

Anonymous said...

just me - It is no secret that the church is financially stable or that it has investments and ownership in various entities. That didn't happen overnight.

I guess I don't understand your reasoning. So if the church was poor and in debt and failing like most of the financial institutions and banks in the world, then you would be ok with paying tithing and wouldn't want to leave the church?

Paying tithing is not about making the church more wealthy, it is a principle of faith on behalf of an individual. If you make major sacrifices to pay tithing, then God will recognize that if your heart is in the right place.

If you are sincerely looking for answers to your concerns, there are plenty of people available to help you; like a bishop, the missionaries, a friend or family member.

That doesn't mean you have to agree, you are free to make your own choice about it. But at least you will be informed, especially when you give arguments that are really not true like the church paying for the mall with tithing. The prophet even said in General Conference that the new buildings near temple square are not paid for with tithing.

If you are looking for reasons to hate the church, there are plenty of people out there that can help you with that too.

Your intentions clearly seem to be that you are wanting to present this information to an audience in hopes that people will see your point of view and also want to leave the church.

When it comes to religion I really don't want to get into debates like this because there is mostly contention, instead of a sincere desire to hear the other person's point of view.

SHELLY said...

First off I have to say that I love your blog. I think you guys definitely represent the average male guy, whether you be LDS or not. I think you're answer to Cherry's situation was just amazing and it needed to be said. I have a mom that's exactly the same as Cherry's and I'm glad to say that I have the same opinions as you guys do on this topic. So thank for being so amazing with your advice. Last, you guys keep up the awesome blog despite what all the petty small-minded, judgmental, "love thy neighbor as thyself Mormons" may comment about it. Just Remember that just because you may share your life in a public way doesn't give them the right to judge you and criticize your every move. POWER TO THE MORMON BACHELOR PAD, KEEP IT UP!!!

just me said...

Anon and bad horse, I am not trying to be antagonistic here. I am simply trying to help my friends see what I have seen.

You have to trace back the 'other real estate ventures' and see where that all began.


After the U.S. government confiscated church property under the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, the church fell into severe debt. The government had seized most church assets, including tithing money donated by members. As a result, by the time Lorenzo Snow became church president in 1898, the church was $2.3 million in debt.[8]
Snow reiterated the principal of tithing (giving 10% of one's income to the church) and by 1907 the church was completely out of debt and since then has not used debt to fund its operations, even for capital projects.[9]

Okay, so look at that. In the early 1900s the church was in debt. So they went from being in the red to being in the black from what...tithing. There wouldn't be money for 'real estate ventures' if there was no tithing. Which could very likely have been your great grandparent's tithing money that funded the real estate properties, which have made more money in time and that has thus gone toward the building of the mall, hotels and condos. Either way you slice it, the money originally came from tithing. Whether it was Grandpa Joe's tithing money or mine, it is going to these real estate projects and I don't agree with that.

A good article to read:

Where's All That Tithing Money Going?
For one, it buys real estate, as noted in this Deseret News article reporting the Church's recent acquisition of 88,000 acres of farmland in Nebraska. The Church paid cash, to the tune of $17.6 million. Cash. Your tithing dollars at work.

The Church does not release financial statements to the general public or even to the general membership, and has not since roughly 1963. That seems a bit unfair to the average members of the Church who contribute all the money. After all, lack of disclosure and oversight is almost always associated with mismanagement and corruption, and I have little doubt that rule applies to the billions of dollars under the control of senior LDS leaders. The internal audits performed by LDS employees keep Bishops from stealing from the tithing pot, but can do little to prevent mismanagement or improper spending by Church executives. It has become painfully clear in recent years how ineffective auditing is at preventing large-scale financial misdeeds even in corporations subject to comprehensive public disclosure laws. It is reasonable to think the risk is even greater in the Church, where so little financial information is disclosed to the public.

Mormons rather naively assume much of the money goes to aid the poor, which is wildly inaccurate--only a miniscule proportion goes to "charitable causes." Most of it goes to support the corporate operations of the Church--buildings (chapels, temples, visitor's centers), payroll (CES employees, LDS bureaucrats, and GA salaries paid out as "living expenses"), and investments (primarily securities and real estate). Who "owns" the assets of the Church, generally estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars? Theoretically, "the Church" owns the assets, with senior leaders exercising control as "trustees" of the Church and its members. Practically, the senior leaders own the assets--they make the decisions, they are accountable to no one, and none of the "little people" (average Church members, supposedly the ones in whose interest the money and assets are managed) have a say in what is done with the money or are even able to obtain meaningful financial information concerning revenues, expenditures, assets, or budgets.

continued here:

just me said...

Sorry I ran out of space. To be continued.....

Another thing I did not know, the top Church General Authorities are paid. Very well. We're talking in the hundreds of thousands per year. They also have paid housing, free travel, maids, unaudited credit cards and their family members can get into LDS schools free. I obtained this information from someone who worked in the Church Office Building for many years.

Those are quite a few perks if you ask me. As I have never been paid for any church calling I thought we were ALL volunteers. Apparently not.

Also, TIME magazine estimated in 1996 that the church's assets exceeded $30 billion. Not to mention, I have heard that the Church rakes in roughly 12 million in offerings PER DAY!

My point is, the Church does not need your money. God does not need your money. SAVE your money. Please. If you want to go to church to become a better person and draw closer to God, that's great. But He doesn't need your money to prove your love to Him. Save that extra $200 or so that you would be sending in for tithing and spend it on groceries, school or helping a friend who really needs it. That's just my .02.

[Just so you don't think I'm a disgruntled Mormon who went inactive because I was offended, please know that I have served in just about every calling from nursery to young women's presidency to relief society presidency. I took it all very seriously, attended the temple regularly and was EXTREMELY dedicated to the Church. I was so shaken to find out all these details. I have sacrificed so much to be a member. But you live and learn. I realized that I have always been a spiritual person and I am just as close to God now as I ever was sitting in Sacrament meeting, Sunday school and Relief Society week after week and paying my money to the bishop faithfully every month.

Bad Horse said...

Just Me - Where has it ever been said that the Church needs our money? Of course the church doesn't need our money. The point is not to help the Church finance everything, the point is the amount of sacrifice that we are willing to commit to.

Anonymous said...

I'm done sacrificing for real estate property.

CaraDee said...

If you say that the RS presidency is in control of themselves, you are deluding yourself. They have to answer to the 1st Presidency, just as a ward RSPresidency answers to the bishop. Overall, the MEN are in charge of the "longest running womens organization". Bishops and stake presidents veto plans the RS has made all the time.

Also, women in Joseph Smith's day regularly gave blessings to sick children. It was very common. Women stood in the circle when they blessed their baby. They have given women LESS "power" over time and I'm not sure why. When you are in te temple, think about what the men and women wear that is the same. What is the name for it?Women DO have the priesthood, but are not able to use it.

Nikki said...

This thread is getting more and more ridiculous. How about renaming it 110 ways to criticize your church and leave is what people do. They feel such guilt that they thrive on any and all criticisms they can find. I think it's time to drag gay marriage into this heap of nonsense...oops did I say nonsense I meant BULLSHIT. Bottom line is, if a person wants out it is more often than not because they don't want to live a certain way so they invent retarded reasons to get out and live their lifestyle and continue to heap on the justifications to ease their ever weary minds that they are in the right. Just go and leave us to our sexist and greedy church we believe it to be true.
Now about that fleet of cars the church owns for the general authorities to use...

Anonymous said...

I'm glad it works for you Nikki. You fit right in.

Nikki said...

Anonymous, Actually I don't fit in much at all...but I have chosen my path as have you. Let's not pretend you are more of a free spirit because you aren't part of the church. There is a very large group that agrees with you and your thinking is just as much a group think. :)N

Anonymous said...

just me -

You are completely misunderstanding the purpose of tithing.

Paying tithing is a commandment (see Malachi 3). It is about giving back one tenth to God because he has given us all that we have. It is not so much about money as it is an act of faith and sacrifice.

I don't know where you get the idea that tithing is only for the poor. In every lesson I have ever heard or taught, it is made very clear that tithing is mainly used to build churches, temples and for missionary work etc. It is the money from fast offerings that are generally used to help the poor.

The church is usually one of the first responders in any major disaster. And they give to the poor in such an amazing capacity that President Hinckley was even given the medal of freedom, the nation's highest civil honor, by President Bush. This was because of the humanitarian aid, disaster relief and education funding given around the world by the church. That would not be possible if people had the same attitude toward tithing (or donating to the church) that you do.

Just because the church has ownership of something does not mean that it was funded by tithing. Many people have donated huge amounts of property and money to the church (seperate from tithing). Which makes things like building a mall possible. And what is so wrong with building a mall that will create jobs and help the economy?

I know for a fact that the cost of living for general authorities comes from revenues from deseret book, not tithing. That is why the church has set up seperate entities, to keep that money seperate from tithing. The church employs many people that work for the church full time. I have no problem with them getting paid and bishops not getting paid. That is one of the greatest things about the church. People serve on local levels in the church, not because of resumes or education or salaries, but because they want to give of their time and talents in helping the church to go forward.

I sincerely think you are a really good person. Reading about your feelings towards the church makes me really sad. I hope you will learn about the facts so that you can make informed decisions.

Anonymous said...

I also want to add that Bishops and others that volunteer in the church still have a regular job, there is really no need for them to get paid.

The Apostles and First Presidency of the church are all successful business men, who left behind their careers (and huge salaries) to devote the rest of their lives to serving in the church. I don't see why we wouldn't want their cost of living paid for.

CaraDee said...

Nikki, I didn't leave the church because I didn't want to live a certain way. That is a lazy and common assumption. It's because Joseph Smith had 34 wives, 11 of them already married and still living with their husbands. Because he sent their husbands on missions and then married their wives behind their backs. Because he manipulated teenagers (that lived with him and Emma) into marrying him. Honestly, if you look into the history of the church, it is lies. Ever read into the Book of Abraham and the papyrus? Do it. JS made it up. Try the Kinderhook Plates. That and a hundred other reasons are why my family left. What is bullshit is the movie they have playing at Temple Square. It is presumptuous and offensive for you to assume why people leave the church.

Sam, The Nanti-SARRMM said...

The Kinderhook Plates were bought by Jospeh, but he never did anything with them and they were later found out to be fraudulent. What's the big deal with that?

Anonymous said...

"It is presumptuous and offensive for you to assume why people leave the church." - CaraDee you are awesome, my thoughts exactly.

Nikki - does your own faith in your church depend on the notion that all those who leave really do actually believe, but don't want to live the gospel?
Thank you for your assumptions, but I am actually not riddled with guilt. I personally would feel guilt about being a practicing member of a church that discriminates like the mormon church does, but that's just me. I wouldn't want to be an asshole who presumed to know how you should feel.

-girl without a weary mind

Anonymous said...

misery loves company.

why don't you go mormon bash somewhere else.

Nikki said...

Anonymous aka girl without a weary mind...I find it hard to believe that you left without guilt because you yourself prove my point beautifully. You are here on a Mormon blog bringing up all of your angst and inferiority complexes, you can't leave the church or its members alone. If you were comfortable in your decision you would not try to convince or debate with anyone ever because you wouldn't care. But here you are with us to discuss what is on your mind. You feel discriminated against and are a victim, we get that. Your inferiority complex is your own issue not the churches. Go back to your liberal victimhood college classes and smoke some dope with the other poor babies who are suffering at the hands of others and quit blaming the church and its evil practices. You are a product of entitlement and an adverse philosophy taught to you by elitist morons. You bought it hook line and sinker. Turns out you aren't so individualistic after all but a sponge who soaked up the poor me mentality of the left wing propaganda machine. It's all good, you are an institution sucker anyway.

Anonymous said...

Hm, I am not even sure what to say because there were so many comments on this post that I had way too many reactions too. But I think I am going to start with the actual post itself. I truly enjoyed it. I think that Jake described many of the emotions that come through dating people who are of a different race very well. When I dated someone that was black I had to deal with many of these emotions including my mother being extremely uncomfortable and constantly battling me over the entire time we were dating. I do believe that the rewards were worth it though, and I feel that my parents gained a new perspective from the experience as well.

As far as the whole appearance debate, I do believe that it is offensive to be rude to people because of how they look, but I also feel that it cannot really be equated with racism. Were people who may be considered unattractive ever forced to be slaves and live with extreme injustices? If Cherry had decided to go on a date with someone that was unattractive (and unattractive is such a subjective concept considering how different everyone is) would her mother have sat her down and given her a similar lecture solely based on his appearance? I do not think so. I am not saying that it is ok to be rude based on how ppl look because that is not Christ-like but I do believe that when we are dating we have the opportunity to pick and choose what we like. Who we date is not a political debate but a choice that eventually ends in marriage and we have to be willing to live and grow with that person for the rest of our lives.

As far as women and the priesthood, I believe that God has a plan. He always has and this plan is meant to bring about our greatest joy and happiness. Why then can we not exercise a little faith and realize that despite the trials and tribulations that we endure in this life (which are only meant to stretch and grow us to our full potential) will actually make us the most happy in the life to come? I look forward to that day when I can stand in front of my Savior and know that I have done all that he has asked of me. It is also important to note that it is impossible for either sex to enter the celestial kingdom without the other. The only way to become exalted to the highest glory is by being sealed to your spouse for time and all eternity. Without this wonderful ordinance (which requires both sexes in equal standing) we can not become like our Heavenly Father.

I think those are my mine reactions to this very interesting and thought provoking blog!

Morgan said...

I think you answered her question perfectly. Really. Perfectly. I'm black and I was born and raised in the church. I've heard the thing about the church counseling us to date within our own race before. Though I've always known that it's not true, I can't help but to feel sick at the thought of people actually buying into that.

Racism is still a very big issue in this country. I've experienced it before in the church. I'm glad that you addressed it.