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

Well....

I think you will find that most defenders here do not believe the mark spoken of in the BoM has anything to do with dark skin.

I understand that this was the accepted teaching however most here will say that the past teachings were just opinion and misinterpretation of scripture.

:P

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post

Hi SF...

Well... for many years most people in the church believed the mark discussed in the BoM was dark skin. Leaders of the church have stated this and it was the accepted belief.

However, it seems that defenders of the church here on this MB do not believe that the "mark" spoken of in the BoM has anything to do with dark skin. There was a thread here not too long ago about this... (if anyone knows how to find it maybe you could post the link)? On the thread it was clear that the idea of the mark being dark skin was just the uninformed opinion of earlier leaders.

I'm actually not a believer but I'm doing my best to share the thoughts of those that are....

BTW... welcome to the board! :P

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post

Truth dancer:

The answer is really very easy. We are all children of God. That is Church Doctrine.

God for whatever His reason(s) said that only first born male children of High Priests from the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood.

God for whatever His reason(s) He said that any male of the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood.

God for whatever His reason(s) allowed King David to use the Priesthood.

God for whatever His reason(s) said that He would only teach to the Tribe of Juda.

God for whatever His reason(s) instructed the Apostlers not to but to the House of Israel.

God for whatever His reason(s) told the Apostles to go to all the world and preach the Gospel.

God for whatever His reason(s) said that Blacks from Africa could be members of His Church, but would not have the Priesthood for a while.

God for whatever His reason(s) removed all of the above bans.

We do not know the reason(s) for the ANY of the above bans. God has not revealed any of it to us. Unfortunately there has been "Speculation" as to the reason(s) for the ban. Some of it hurtfull and even racist. All any of can do is apologize for the hurtfull "Speculation", and move on.

Barring His telling us first. It is one of many things on my list to ask Him about when I see Him.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

It appears that you think God takes away will. Why were the Bible people so primitive if that is how it works? Why do you continue to make up new rules for Mormons and then expect us to do anything but look at you funny?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

This is incredible. Not one person has even bothered to check what the "current view is". I guess it is less troublesome to ascend that pedestal in ignorance?

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.

What teachings of racism is the church "embracing"? Do tell. As for apologies...how well have they worked to bring races together in other religions? What are the stats? Why are you so focused on what the church has not done while choosing to remain completely ignorant of what it has done?

It just gets odder and odder. But this elitism is not without precedent....this is from a leading book on Evangelical problems with racism...and the worthlessness of those empty apologies.

"Some of the white elite evangelicals attempted reconciliation, but incompletely.  The problem with whites' conception of reconciliation, many claimed, was than they did not seek true justice--that is, justice both individually and collectively.  Without this component, reconciliation was cheap, artificial, and mere words.  It was rather like a big brother shoving his little brother to the ground, apologizing, and then shoving him to the ground again."

Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith:  Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),  p. 58.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi TSS.... :P

So basically you believe the ban was from God.... therefore God is racist? :unsure:

Would you suggest this is current church doctrine? (The part about the ban being from God... <_< )

It seems like some defenders think the ban was just policy based on the opinions of some (perhaps misguided) church leaders. Perhaps I am mistaken on this?

I don't know the official church position on this...

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post
However, it seems that defenders of the church here on this MB do not believe that the "mark" spoken of in the BoM has anything to do with dark skin. There was a thread here not too long ago about this... (if anyone knows how to find it maybe you could post the link)? On the thread it was clear that the idea of the mark being dark skin was just the uninformed opinion of earlier leaders.

Ya know...you can't even be bothered to inform yourself about anything that has happened in the last decade when it comes to race....and now you can't even digest the contents of those threads. Does putting words in everyone else's mouth help your position? Does it never occur to you that the defenders are still here?

Do you remember that racism was not even a word until anti-Semitism became prominent? Do you remember Brant's comments about ancient ideologies? Rhetorical question.... :P

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know the official church position on this...

Obviously. But don't let that stop you.

Share this post


Link to post
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-

McConkie was also the first to say he was wrong. I'm trying to think if you have ever done that as you spew misinformation....

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.

Then why are you leaning on McConkie...especially since he came out and told everyone to forget everything he had ever said about it? :P

BTW...you have the burden of proving racism. Simply ignoring the last few decades isn't going to get you very far.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Juliann....

So... what is the official church doctrine?

Was the ban directed/commanded by God?

What teachings of racism is the church "embracing"? Do tell. As for apologies...how well have they worked to bring races together in other religions? What are the stats? Why are you so focused on what the church has not done while choosing to remain completely ignorant of what it has done?

I stated, "If the church continues to embrace the teachings (although not the practice) of racism then I would not suggest an apology is appropriate."

I'm wondering IF many members believe in the teachings that were given by many leaders of the church for decades. It seems to me that many STILL believe in these teachings. I think many will continue to believe in these teachings until the church comes out and states that they are not true....

I understand the church is making efforts to include Blacks. I applaud this. But it seems to me that if they really want to "put the past behind them," they need to denounce the teachings that still seem to be quite prevalent regarding race.

I mean just review this thread... there are those here who believe the ban was from God. Is this doctrinal or not? Do you think the ban was from God?

As long as members still believe the ban was from God there is still a problem IMO. If one believes the ban was from God then they are basically stating that it was OK to be racist because God wanted it that way... do you not see the problem with this? This is much different than saying, we messed up and we are sorry about it.

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge to all racebaiters!

1.How many of you can produce statements from church leaders in the past decade?

2. How many of you can produce the studies that do exist to prove your cheap shots? Or is that why you refuse to produce them?

If you cannot do this, please explain why should anyone listen to you when you withhold information?

Share this post


Link to post

So... what is the official church doctrine?

Was the ban directed/commanded by God?

This topic comes up at least every other week. Cyberspace has been filled with quote after quote after quote. Yet you cannot produce one of them. Not only that...you refuse to acknowledge them even though you say you know about these threads.

You tell me...you have placed yourself in the expert seat here.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Juliann...

However, it seems that defenders of the church here on this MB do not believe that the "mark" spoken of in the BoM has anything to do with dark skin. There was a thread here not too long ago about this... (if anyone knows how to find it maybe you could post the link)? On the thread it was clear that the idea of the mark being dark skin was just the uninformed opinion of earlier leaders.

Ya know...you can't even be bothered to inform yourself about anything that has happened in the last decade when it comes to race....and now you can't even digest the contents of those threads. Does putting words in everyone else's mouth help your position? Does it never occur to you that the defenders are still here?

If I did not accurately represent those that participated on the thread I apologize. Please tell me where I misrepresented anyone. It was not my intention in any way to do so.

I was not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, I was trying to summarize some ideas in a thread...

Please correct me where I have misstated...

Thanks,

:P

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Juliann...

I have read many statements by the brethren over the last several years but so far I have not found one that suggests the ban was NOT of God... so am I to assume the official position is that the ban IS from God?

Could you just give me a hint as to where I could find a statement?

Thanks,

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post
I have read many statements by the brethren over the last several years but so far I have not found one that suggests the ban was NOT of God... so am I to assume the official position is that the ban IS from God?

Nope.

Also, it was not a ban, it was a deferral of the blessing based on lineage. Most leaders assumed the blessing would be granted to other or all lineages in God's own time (or as we came to have enough faith and understanding to ask and clarify what we had already been told). Some lineages were granted the priesthood before OD2 (based on patriarchal blessings). Today we don't know any more of what God told the prophets (thus sayeth the Lord) than is in LDS scripture.

BTW, JS and LDS "relative" support of blacks was controversial and some believe it was also a significant catalyst/reason for persecution and expulsion from Missouri.

Could you just give me a hint as to where I could find a statement? 

www.lds.org and

a. go to D&C, OD2

b. read the most recent conference addresses

c. use the Gospel Library for keyword searches

d. read them in the Ensign link under pdf

e. ask an LDS neighbor to help

Share this post


Link to post
Could you just give me a hint as to where I could find a statement?

How about a search on that thread you already know about.

Share this post


Link to post
So... what is the official church doctrine?

Canonization/common consent is the only way for a revelation to become official doctrine of the LDS church. There is no record of a canonized revelation that banned those with African descent from holding the priesthood. The ban was a policy which has since been changed.

If someone has knowledge of a revelation that started this policy, now would be a good time to provide a link.

Share this post


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

None. I don't believe that the "mark of Cain" was a darker skin.

Sincerely

Jon

Share this post


Link to post

If someone has knowledge of a revelation that started this policy, now would be a good time to provide a link.

A link stating the opposite has been supplied. And ignored.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi 1DC...

www.lds.org and

a. go to D&C, OD2

b. read the most recent conference addresses

c. use the Gospel Library for keyword searches

d. read them in the Ensign link under pdf

e. ask an LDS neighbor to help

Thank you... I have read all the conference addresses, read the OD2, read all the Ensigns and checked out various other statements. I'm a long time active member and while I don't have any neighbors that are LDS, I have spoken with various ward members. Most believe that the ban was of God and that BRM & Co. were correct in their opinions regarding why the ban was implemented. When my daughter was dating a VERY wonderful young man who was black there were several folks in the ward who warned her of the dangers of this.. one well meaning member actually printed off various statements by church leaders.... <_<

I have still not read a statement by the brethren suggesting the ban (deferral of the priesthood based on lineage) was NOT of God.

You seem to suggest that you believe the ban (DotPBoL) was not of God... am I correct in this assumption?

Do you know of a statement by the brethren that would suggest this?

Thanks...

:P

~dancer~

Share this post


Link to post

Do you know of a statement by the brethren that would suggest this?

Hello?

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.

×