Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Corky Wallace

Racism in LDS theology - come on, guys

Recommended Posts

If the word "skin" is supposed to mean something other than skin then doesn't "seed" have to mean something other than the way "seed" is used in the Bible? Look at Alma 3:9.

Sincerely

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
To assign stupidity, lack of inspiration or what have you to the Church, the Brethren, etc. is no less wrongfully judgmental than the racism you detest.

The damage done to black members or potential black converts by racist church policies is exponentially greater than some members believing that the church, brethren, etc, are stupid. Lets just acknowledge the vast difference.

Share this post


Link to post
The difference between racist statements made from Mormon apostles and popular authors is that popular authors don't (1) derive their racism from scripture or (2) pretend to have exclusive communicative abilities with God.

Heh...nice try. But the complaint was that the book was still being published. My examples are a perfect analogy...obviously or you would not have to shift the argument to maintain the racebaiting.

It's one thing when an institution endorses racist beliefs. It's quite another when that institution pretends to speak for God.

Share this post


Link to post
I mean, horses aren't really horses, they're buffalos; steel isn't steel, a curse of black skin doesn't apply to people from Fiji, and now it's not really a curse at all, but perhaps just a misinterpretation of the term "dark skin".

Forgive me, but the term "Clintonesque" comes to mind.

Forgive me...but the word "ignorance" comes to mind. The same terminology is in the Bible and always has been. But that "racism" seems to be ok with you.

Let the double standards proceed....

Share this post


Link to post
If the word "skin" is supposed to mean something other than skin then doesn't "seed" have to mean something other than the way "seed" is used in the Bible? Look at Alma 3:9.

I think we should redefine all the words. I'm sure you could squeeze something sinister out of every single one of them!

Share this post


Link to post

WHAT IS THERE TO UNDERSTAND? When a group is denied access or activity due to their race, THAT'S RACISM! Pure and simple. And it is embarassing and wrong that Church doctrine included racist doctrine, and now tries to ignore the problem.

"The Church" has come out with some pretty strong statements. You are the one ignoring them. I wonder why you would do that...since you are sooooo concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
The damage done to black members or potential black converts by racist church policies is exponentially greater than some members believing that the church, brethren, etc, are stupid. Lets just acknowledge the vast difference.

Do you have any data on that? Or just more double standards to support racebaiting?

Share this post


Link to post
I think MC points out some valid differences between an author of fiction, Mark Twain, & the claims of the LDS church.

Well, Corky...I know that you survive on double standards but you really can't have it both ways. 1. Those who racebait believe that the BOM is fiction so the analogy holds. 2. The complaint was that a book was published that was embarrassing so the analogy holds.

My favorite gradeschool response is the one where the person throwing out ugly accusations is so uneducated they don't even realize that they are condemning everyone else along with their target. My favorite gradeschool response is when they are completely, totally oblivious to what is in the Bible as they pontificate about what a religion should do. :P

This appears to be the case regarding explicitly racist "policies", viewpoints and teachings of LDS leaders up to pretty darn near the present.

Really. And you can produce data on this? Oh wait....that isn't required for racebaiting! I forgot my place for a minute. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
The damage done to black members or potential black converts by racist church policies is exponentially greater than some members believing that the church, brethren, etc, are stupid. Lets just acknowledge the vast difference.

Do you have any data on that? Or just more double standards to support racebaiting?

Julian,

Your question seems unproductive as we both would agree that such a study of my above statement most probably has not taken place.

Julian, in your heart, surely you can see which scenario is more damaging.

Share this post


Link to post
I think we should redefine all the words. I'm sure you could squeeze something sinister out of every single one of them!

Hi Julian,

I am not trying to squeeze anything. It shouldn't be too hard to see that when someone has children (mingling the seed) with someon of another race that they take on physical characteristics of their parents. It is believed that the Lamanites killed the Nephits and that the Lamanites were cursed by God. The Lamanites received a dark skin from God because all of their sins. Isn't that the clear meaning? To come up with something else would be a squeeze. I can understand the desire to change the meaning but it would have to go against the grain of the BOM.

Thanks

Jon

Share this post


Link to post

Julia said-

Then you need to produce evidence showing that LDS are more racist than other religions. Or are you still just racebaiting with empty and careless claims?

Yes, other religions (or should I say, other permutations of Christianity) have racism in their history. And this racism is valid evidence that they are not divinely led, nor inspired. Other churches have indications of falsehood, and the Mormon church is no different in that respect. Historic racism is one of those. Unless God truely is a racist, then Mormon prophets (apostles are considered prophets) should know better; they should be held to a higher standard than leaders of corrupt religions. After all, when the LDS church makes the claim to be the "One and only true church", it sets itself apart from the rest of the religious world. When LDS prophets merely parrot whatever false doctrines are popular at the time among Christendom, they demonstrate that the church is not as unique as they purport to be, and it completely undermines their claim to exclusive divine truth.

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz. Yes, the Mormon church was part of the universe. Oh, wait...we aren't allowed to be

You're the one who claims to be unique; "the one true church". When history demonstrates that the Mormon church acts just like other churches-- which are false-- the logical conclusion is that the Mormon church is false as well.

And how long has this theory that white skin is an adaptation been around? What universe have you been living in?

Evolutionary theory has placed the ancestors of all of humanity in Africa. The first humans were black. This is common knowledge among anyone with even the most perfunctory understanding of anthropology and human evolution.

Aren't you engaged in some sort of higher education? Maybe you ought to take a few classes on anthropology, or at least read a book about it, lest you continue to be grossly ignorant on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post

Joe said

ABSOLUTELY! And the Church needs to purge itself of racist leanings by OFFICIALLY admitting its doctrine exclusion due to race and dark skin equating with "iniquity" was wrong and is now wrong. As it is, the GA's are silent on the subject and the apologists forward the logic that "God changed his mind". They don't use those exact words, but that's the message.

Exactly. Past Mormon prophets used very plain language and had no problem at all spelling out the racist doctrines of the past. If they are not taught at this time (and I'm not totally convinced that this is the case), contemporary prophets have the duty and obligation to OFFICIALLY refute that false doctrine. Apologists using the "it was only his opinion" defense doesn't count. Until a Mormon prophet explicitly states, either verbally or through writing, that Blacks weren't less valient in the pre-existence, and that that teaching was false and misguided, this racist belief is still part of Mormon doctrine, along with every other racism belief which past mormon prophets have espoused and contemporary prophets have failed to reject.

In other words, silence on the part of current prophets is an endorsement of past racist doctrines.

Share this post


Link to post
To assign stupidity, lack of inspiration or what have you to the Church, the Brethren, etc. is no less wrongfully judgmental than the racism you detest.

The damage done to black members or potential black converts by racist church policies is exponentially greater than some members believing that the church, brethren, etc, are stupid. Lets just acknowledge the vast difference.

The problem is your "exponential damage" either doesn't exist or is difficult to trace. Thousands of Black members of the Church do not feel this way, as a wonderful meeting in the Tabernacle on Temple Square last year attests. From Gladys Knight to the newest Ghananian converts, the struggles of Black members, though possibly different in some individual cases (due to race) is similar to the struggles of members everywhere - due to economics, not yet being encultured in Mormonism, the pains of sin, etc. The Holy Spirit is the only true unifier of the Human Family.

I do not mean to say that apology and reparative measures are not appropriate or are never called for. The problem is in truly identifying the damage, the individuals who actually suffer from wrongdoing, and if there was even wrongdoing in the first place. For example, I personally know a man whose first name is Fancher who is a second generation Mormon descended from those of MMM fame; he and his group (numbering over 100 members of the Church) simply don't see the need for the Church to apologize or repair anything dealing with the MMM, and so have refrained from requests to participate in the "festivities."

Ultimately, as Jesus clearly taught, it is up to all of us to forgive (lest we not be forgiven) and to love (as He did - the sign of true discipleship), not to accuse and accuse and accuse (btw the Hebrew for "accuse" is shatan - satan).

So let's not resort to exponentially claiming exponential victims in an exponential vacuum, K?

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, other religions (or should I say, other permutations of Christianity) have racism in their history. And this racism is valid evidence that they are not divinely led, nor inspired. Other churches have indications of falsehood, and the Mormon church is no different in that respect. Historic racism is one of those. Unless God truely is a racist, then Mormon prophets (apostles are considered prophets) should know better; they should be held to a higher standard than leaders of corrupt religions. After all, when the LDS church makes the claim to be the "One and only true church", it sets itself apart from the rest of the religious world. When LDS prophets merely parrot whatever false doctrines are popular at the time among Christendom, they demonstrate that the church is not as unique as they purport to be, and it completely undermines their claim to exclusive divine truth.

MC - My sentiments exactly. I have a small time machine I fashioned from copper wires, some tungsten tubing, magnets, a motor and spent postum grinds (the power source). I went into the year 2045 and found this posted right here on this site.

Yes, other religions (or should I say, other permutations of Christianity) have homophobia in their history. And this homophobia is valid evidence that they are not divinely led, nor inspired. Other churches have indications of falsehood, and the Mormon church is no different in that respect. Historic homophobia is one of those. Unless God truly is sexually prejudiced, then Mormon prophets (apostles are considered prophets) should know better; they should be held to a higher standard than leaders of corrupt religions. After all, when the LDS church makes the claim to be the "One and only true church", it sets itself apart from the rest of the religious world. When LDS prophets merely parrot whatever false doctrines are popular at the time among Christendom, they demonstrate that the church is not as unique as they purport to be, and it completely undermines their claim to exclusive divine truth.

I don't know the future, but it looks like MC or his offspring will still be posting here 40 years hence, and the church will now have two equally disturbing past prejudices to explain away. False beliefs about skin color and false beliefs about sexual orientation. That members fail to see these identically similar (products of nature) prejudices is astounding to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Your question seems unproductive as we both would agree that such a study of my above statement most probably has not taken place.

Julian, in your heart, surely you can see which scenario is more damaging.

In other words, more race baiting. :P

Share this post


Link to post
I am not trying to squeeze anything. It shouldn't be too hard to see that when someone has children (mingling the seed) with someon of another race that they take on physical characteristics of their parents. It is believed that the Lamanites killed the Nephits and that the Lamanites were cursed by God. The Lamanites received a dark skin from God because all of their sins. Isn't that the clear meaning? To come up with something else would be a squeeze. I can understand the desire to change the meaning but it would have to go against the grain of the BOM.

How many biblical characters received a "darker skin" because of sin or other circumstances? Answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post

You're the one who claims to be unique; "the one true church". When history demonstrates that the Mormon church acts just like other churches-- which are false-- the logical conclusion is that the Mormon church is false as well.

Yes, only Mormons consider themselves to belong to the real deal. All other religions think they are false. Give me a break.

Now back to your regularly scheduled race baiting.

Share this post


Link to post
In other words, silence on the part of current prophets is an endorsement of past racist doctrines.

Now you are having to resort to untruths. Still waiting for evidence of any of your ugly accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know the future, but it looks like MC or his offspring will still be posting here 40 years hence,

You are right about something. What a sad commentary....they will be spending their lives nipping at other other people, never having evolved...never willing to accept any sort of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Until a Mormon prophet explicitly states, either verbally or through writing, that Blacks weren't less valient in the pre-existence, and that that teaching was false and misguided, this racist belief is still part of Mormon doctrine, along with every other racism belief which past mormon prophets have espoused and contemporary prophets have failed to reject.

It only gets worse. The less valiant excuse has been thoroughly denounced...and not by modern prophets. But you don't even know that. AGAIN....what are the current statements about racism? Do you know THAT?

Back to your regularly scheduled race baiting.

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann said:

Well, Corky...I know that you survive on double standards but you really can't have it both ways. 1. Those who racebait believe that the BOM is fiction so the analogy holds. 2. The complaint was that a book was published that was embarrassing so the analogy holds.

It appears you're simultaneously asserting the BOM, LDS Theology and LDS Prophets are God's conduit to mankind in this era, while claiming discrimination because the BOM, LDS policies and Mormons are viewed through the prism of a higher standard and are being singled out for holding views of their contemporaries.

I thought the LDS theology would be a leader in clarifying areas of the Bible that are problematic, given the LDS advantage of revelation & modern prophets.

The alternative is that God changes his mind depending on how far along progressive movements are. 1978 was pretty far down the chain of ending racist ideology.

The lesson here applied to homosexuality is that gays should fight tooth & nail to discredit those parts of the Bible (and tangential ideologies, like Mormonism) that condemn them. This approach worked for ending slavery, which was also sanctioned by the Bible.

In 50 years God will change his mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi St B... <_<

Truth Dancer: I think what is closer to the mark is that most members simply do not have any idea what the reason for the ban was (was it a mistake of man? did God have a purpose? etc.) To assign stupidity, lack of inspiration or what have you to the Church, the Brethren, etc. is no less wrongfully judgmental than the racism you detest. The fact is, YOU do not understand why the ban, but you suppose the worst (and therefore suppose that the Church ought to apologize or denounce the former tenet).

I don't mean to assign stupidity to the racism. I understand it was part of a culture. I also understand that my belief that racism is not of God may be judging those who embrace racism.

IMO, if the church wants to put its racism past behind it, it would be healing, loving and holy to apologize for the harm that racism brings to a community and to state the false teachings are indeed false. Of course this would only be appropriate if the church believes its former racist teachings are false. I don't know what the current view is.

You are correct that I do not fully understand the ban. I don't think I suppose the worst. I suppose that the church leaders shared the beliefs of many others of the time, unfortunate as this may be.

I only think the church should apologize if it believes that it is wrong to be racist. If the church continues to embrace the teachings (although not the practice) of racism then I would not suggest an apology is appropriate.

Sorry that you are embarrassed to be in the "I don't know" crowd; recognizing that status is truly the first step to acquiring wisdom. As long as you (et al.) refuse to acknowledge "I don't know" as a legitimate answer, there is not much else to discuss.

What I have difficulty with is the idea that the church has not denounced its racist teachings.... the fact that "I don't know" is the answer tells me that the teachings are alive and well. It is as if many think God was behind the racism but we don't know why. Maybe this is true. I am very open to the idea that my awareness of God may not be the right one. All I can say is my personal inspiration does not allow for a God that is racist. :P

Let me ask you this...

Do you think the ban was of God?

Do you think that the teachings of many church leaders are correct in suggesting that the Black race was somehow not as valiant in the premortal life?

Thanks for your thoughts... :unsure:

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post
For the great majority of the decendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant lineage is that of Isreal.  The Indians are repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations of the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they "shall blossom as the rose" (D&C49:24), that is, become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago. (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pg 33)

McConkie spells out the Mormon position that the primary ancestors of native americans are a cursed race that will become white when the curse is dispelled through righteous living. Lest you take the position that "white" doesn't refer to skin color, I quote McConkie again-

Finally, before the judgement bar of God, all who have been righteous, Lamanites and Nephites alike, will be free from the curse of spiritual death and the skin of darkness (Jacob. 3:5-9)[ibid. pg 429]
After separation into groups had occurred, however, to avoid intermarriage between them, the Lord placed a curse upon the Lamanites which included a dark skin.

Concerning Blacks-

Those who were less valient in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes...The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned....It is the lords doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.
As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to recieve the priesthood are born through his lineage.

It's quite obvious that among Mormon doctrine is included the belief that God uses dark skin as a curse. This means that dark skin is an undesirable trait, which in turn means that whites are superior to those with darker skin. This is the very definition of racism.

I've supplied statements from a respected Mormon apostle depicting racist beliefs. I await your response which will include LDS prophets explicitly denouncing Brother McConkie's teachings. Again, LDS apologists don't cut it; to refute a teaching from a prophet, you need the authority of a prophet.

Share this post


Link to post

i've been wondering about this topic. in the newspaper there was a big article on it.

i dont quite understand why God would give people a curse and make their skins black. why would God curse them, and their children's children's children's children's?

Share this post


Link to post

Hi S...

i've been wondering about this topic. in the newspaper there was a big article on it.

i dont quite understand why God would give people a curse and make their skins black. why would God curse them, and their children's children's children's children's? 

God wouldn't!

:P

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×