[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Margaret Young over Bycommonconsent wrote the third part of :

An Exception Being Made in His Case?Or, You Might Be A Racist If?Part 3 By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

Good information for those (like me) interested in the topic. You can also check parts 1 and 2.

Some good info; but I think Sister Young misrepresents the intent of at least some of those who deploy the Levite argument. The point isn't that we know of some divine plan to "give the priesthood out to ever-widening circles". The point is that, contra the 21st century social dogma, God has discriminated in the past. Thus, His having done so again in the recent past--or even doing so in the present or the future--cannot be ruled out, and He is under no obligation to explain His purposes to us. Once you get to that point, you either give Brigham Young and the other LDS leadership the benefit of the doubt due to their (presumed) role as the legitimate successors of Joseph Smith and equal in authority to him; or you don't.

None of the arguments Young cites from Scott Gordon address this core issue; and indeed some of them--and it pains me to say it, since they ultimately come from FAIR--are disingenuous and amount to little better than hair-splitting. To wit:

While the Levites held the priesthood, do we have any scriptures that claim the other tribes of Israel were “cursed” and couldn’t have the priesthood? If we don’t, the situations are not parallel.

But the Levite argument doesn't call for a "curse" to non-Levites; it just says that other people couldn't have the priesthood. And yes, the story of Ezra and the Temple of Zerubabbel shows that the Levite "policy" was proscriptive as well as prescriptive in nature.

While the lesser priesthood was given by linage, Joseph Smith specifically changed the JST bible to say that the Melchizedek priesthood was without father or mother, or in other words it had no lineage. So how do we exclude based on lineage?

The "without father or mother" verbiage was already in the Bible, but it referred to Melchizedek himself. Smith changed the phrase to refer to the order of priesthood that bore Melchizedek's name. That passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews has nothing to do with excluding a lineal component to the priesthood; it just shows that the power of the priesthood is eternal. This blatant stripping of scriptural and historical context is the kind of thing we usually see coming out of professional anti-Mormons, and I'm extremely disappointed to see FAIR stoop to that level.

The Levite explanation has the priesthood first going to the Levites, then to everyone else except blacks, then finally to the blacks. Imagine you are picking teams for a school sporting event.

Again, this misrepresents what most who make the Levite claim (well, me, anyways) are actually saying. And second, it boils down to an argument that God's thoughts and ways must mirror our thoughts and ways. Apparently, the Plan of Salvation was designed to teach God to act more like us, and not vice-versa.

So this puts us in the position of promoting a belief without any scriptural or prophetic basis. We are making it up. Making up doctrine is never a good idea.

Considering that the alternative Gordon and Young would have us embrace seems to be the re-invention of God Himself in our own image, and understanding that (while I can't speak for these two) the Mormon left generally intends to make this discussion a surrogate war over the legitimization of same-sex relationships in the Church--I'll take my chances, thank you.