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

Now we will watch the protestations as to why David O'McKay doesn't matter. :P

Back to your regularly scheduled racebaiting.....

Share this post


Link to post
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.... :P

Do you think that this happens in our wards populated with blacks?

Share this post


Link to post

TD:

Is God a racist?

No. We are ALL of the same race. The race of Gods.

God has not given us ANY reason for the ban... Only that it would not last forever.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml#pogp

What is church doctrine?

Only that which is formally given by the First Presidency, sustained by the Quarum of the 12 Apostles, ratified by the vote of the church in General Conference.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/organization

/priesthood/prophets/official.htm#ser

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?

Juliann,

If the racebaiters can go back to earlier decades on us, why can't we also do it with them? After all, Christians of all stripes were enslaving and torturing blacks for centuries.

Do we hear any recent denunciations from the Southern Baptist conventions?

Or how about apologizing for burning people at the stake at Salem? I believe Calvin also burned a few people at the stake, so let's hear from all you Calvinists!

Oh, and let's not forget the murderous Christians who led the way on executing and driving Mormons from state to state. So far, I've only heard apologies from the states of Illinois and Missouri, but not from any of the Christians.

Does this mean they still support the idea of killing Mormons? I mean, if we haven't heard from them lately on the issue, the actions and words of a century ago should still be valid, right?

It is so easy to read some statements and ignore others, such as Elder McConkie's apology. Funny how some today still claim that Mormons have no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon whatsoever - as if the last decade of findings never happened. Some people are not sincere in wanting to know truth. Some just love to contend, and will be offenders for a word.

I don't blame modern Christians for what earlier Christians did in supporting slavery or Jim Crow laws or the Inquisition or whatever. It isn't fair to blame them for earlier periods when they weren't even around, and today one shouldn't have to be going back decades (or in the case of some of Brigham Young's statements, 150 years) to find accusations to throw at 21st Century Mormons.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Ironic isn't it....if we do say we know anything they are right there to throw tomatoes. Nothing is accepted...ever. I have put up countless quotes that they claim don't exist. If they have to acknowledge them..well, it wasn't said in the right way...or it wasn't good enough for them. There is nothing to discuss...which is why we get the nonstop racebaiting. I think it is appalling to see a group of people so invested in nagging a church that they will stoop to that level.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi juliann,

I am sorry but I looked in a concordance and could not find anything that would prove a "dark skin" due to sin. I suppose that someone could read into the King James version of Lam 5:10 but I am sorry that I cannot find what you want. I will look again but I think someone really has to "read into" the Bible to get that but that is only my supposition. Would you mind posting some of the Scriptures you are referring to. I might not get back to you right away. Sorry

Sincerely

Jon

Share this post


Link to post

I don't blame modern Christians for what earlier Christians did in supporting slavery or Jim Crow laws or the Inquisition or whatever. It isn't fair to blame them for earlier periods when they weren't even around, and today one shouldn't have to be going back decades (or in the case of some of Brigham Young's statements, 150 years) to find accusations to throw at 21st Century Mormons.

Exactly...what sickens me, however, is how they think nothing of using an entire race to score cheap points against a church. It is racebaiting....and it disgusts me...which I am sure is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post

From the link Juliann posted

Mckay says this-

"As a matter of fact, there is no doctrine in this church whatsoever that pertains to the Negroes."

And then, RIGHT after that, the article quotes Mckay saying this-

"We believe that we have scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine and the practice will some day be changed. And that's all there is to it."

Huh? So denying the priesthood to Blacks was not a doctrine but a policy? What, exactly is the difference? What information was the "policy" based on, if not doctrine? What, exactly, is the "scriptural precedent" cited to justify "withholding the priesthood from the Negro"? Could it be that McKay is refering to the curse of Cain? Apparently not, since McKay contradicts himself and his church again with this gem-

"There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse."

This is more than disingenuous. This is an outright lie. It's one thing to say "we used to teach this, but we were wrong. This is what we teach now". It's quite another to claim that it was never taught. Mckay is in direct contradiction with the following statements and scripture, taken from LDS prophets, apostles, and the PoGP.

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wile, and seemingly deprived of all the blessings of intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859,
As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of negros, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966
  "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:8,

When people ask for a refutation of past racist doctrine, they are asking for an admission and an apology, not a denial that they ever existed, contrary to plain and obvious evidence that they did. The former is respectable; the latter is despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
I am sorry but I looked in a concordance and could not find anything that would prove a "dark skin" due to sin. I suppose that someone could read into the King James version of Lam 5:10 but I am sorry that I cannot find what you want. I will look again but I think someone really has to "read into" the Bible to get that but that is only my supposition. Would you mind posting some of the Scriptures you are referring to. I might not get back to you right away. Sorry

At least you made the effort. Here are a couple:

Job 30:26 When I looked for good, then evil came [unto me]: and when I waited for light, there came darkness. . . .

30 My skin is black upon me

Joel 2:6 Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.

If you think that JS made up the BOM and copied from the Bible there is even less excuse to not be cognizant of how the Bible traditionally used black/white as metaphors for sin, evil, distress, etc. Yet no one thinks Job turned into an African-American....even though the curse of Cain/Ham was entrenched long before Mormons appeared.

If you believe the BOM to be an ancient text then you have to make allowances for the culture. The immigrants may well have had a negative view of darker skinned natives. Or they may have intermarried.

But the biggest problem that you will have to deal with...considering the biblical use of black/white...is the fact that there were no black people unless you think they landed in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post

This is more than disingenuous. This is an outright lie. It's one thing to say "we used to teach this, but we were wrong. This is what we teach now". It's quite another to claim that it was never taught. Mckay is in direct contradiction with the following statements and scripture, taken from LDS prophets, apostles, and the PoGP.

Oh....forgot that one as I waited for the frantic scrambling to avoid having to acknowledge those quotes you withhold. He lied! Of course! DUH...and here I thought you would just say he didn't say it the right way.

Share this post


Link to post

its kinda funny that a southern baptist church in Louisana is willing to pay white people 10 dollars to go to church because there isnt many that were going to that specific one and the pastor said "Heaven isnt segrigated"

Share this post


Link to post
As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of negros, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966

:P<_<:unsure:

What a beautiful example....you have to keep quoting McConkie...even though he said he was wrong. He did exactly what you demanded....and it makes noooooo difference.

Back to your regularly scheduled racebaiting....

Share this post


Link to post
its kinda funny that a southern baptist church in Louisana is willing to pay white people 10 dollars to go to church because there isnt many that were going to that specific one and the pastor said "Heaven isnt segrigated"

But that is ok if they apologized.

What is hilarious here is all of the crocodile tears .... when the naggers would do anything in their power to keep them out of the Mormon church.

Share this post


Link to post
its kinda funny that a southern baptist church in Louisana is willing to pay white people 10 dollars to go to church because there isnt many that were going to that specific one and the pastor said "Heaven isnt segrigated"

But that is ok if they apologized.

What is hilarious here is all of the crocodile tears .... when the naggers would do anything in their power to keep them out of the Mormon church.

If who apologized? This was last year.

Share this post


Link to post
If who apologized? This was last year.

The standard line is that everything is way cool if somebody apologizes for what dead people did. Then it doesn't matter how you treat anybody. Read the posts...that is all they whine about. You don't hear one comment about what is happening in the here and now...how integrated the LDS church is while most others are very segregated. But hey...those others apologized!

Share this post


Link to post

Oh k.... Yeah. U know... there were things that were said that sound bad and or are bad. But a couple of Joseph Smith's early friends in the church were black. We didnt deny them from being a member (as some churches did and do). I dont agree with some things that were said but I also wasnt alive so I dont believe that I can comment on it too much.

Share this post


Link to post
I am sorry but I looked in a concordance and could not find anything that would prove a "dark skin" due to sin. I suppose that someone could read into the King James version of Lam 5:10 but I am sorry that I cannot find what you want. I will look again but I think someone really has to "read into" the Bible to get that but that is only my supposition. Would you mind posting some of the Scriptures you are referring to. I might not get back to you right away. Sorry

Actually, Lamentations provides two examples. Concerning those in Jerusalem who failed to repent the poet states,

Share this post


Link to post
He lied! Of course! DUH...and here I thought you would just say he didn't say it the right way.

Yes, he lied. That's what you call it when you say something that isn't true and you KNOW it isn't true.

I tried to be as plain as possible, but I'll spell it out for as unambiguously as possible.

Mckay-"There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse"

Brigham Young-"Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.""

Now, I know you're a bright girl, so I'm sure that you can see the contradiction here. Mckay says there has NEVER been a doctrine that blacks are under a curse, but Brigham Young explicitly says otherwise. Either Mckay is completely ignorant of the teachings of his own church (which isn't entirely impossible- see Hinkley's famous "I don't know that we teach that" interview) OR he is a bold faced liar.

And just for your benefit, here is the dictionary definition of "doctrine" one more time.

Doctrine n-

1-Something taught; a teaching

2- a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann,

In regard to your challenge to all of us "race-baiters", I will gladly concede that LDS leaders in the past 10 years have been without exception (as near as I can tell) exemplary in their treatment of blacks & other minorities. In fact, as far as I can tell, the LDS church has performed a very admirable about-face on the issue of race, and I dare say the same people who once taught me in sunday school that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence now treat me, my african american spouse & our biracial children very, VERY well.

Credit where credit it due, and I'm very thankful for the change and for the change in attitude among not just the leaders, but the rank & file LDS people I live around.

However, your apparent willingness to excuse the past on a wholesale basis is not universally accepted, believe it or not. Perhaps it would save us some precious tax dollars if people would simply get over the wrongs in the past, as the reparations to Japanese Americans who were interred during WWII while their property was conveniently absorbed by others.

Or those whiney Hawaiians, who are still upset about the US government illegally overthrowing the Queen of Hawai'i in 1893.

Or the jews of the Holocaust. Or the Palestinians over getting their land taken away.

Or the endless martyrdom of the Mormons, who were so rudely run out of Nauvoo, after having been run out of Missouri. When will they ever cease to be persecuted?

Ooops... that last one wasn't supposed to be mentioned, since I'm so virulently anti-Mormon and we all know God would have protected them if they really were His people. *wink*

Seriously, the larger point here is that while it is understandable that LDS folks would like to wipe that slate blank as quickly as possible, there are still living human beings who were on the short end of the stick due to racist LDS policy / practice / (innocent whim?), and their questions and lingering resentment are genuine and not so easily swept aside with elementary excuses, whistling and tapdancing.

Like I think we all learned in grade school, pointing out that somebody else also did something wrong (white southerners, people in the Bible, et al) doesn't excuse our own mistakes.

Just as the Nauvoo experience has been woven into the fabric of LDS ideology and lives on to this day, I don't think it is unreasonable for people to question & even vent about fairly widespread, officially sanctioned racism in common LDS ideology just 27 years ago.

And please don't ask me for a study to back up my claim - I was raised LDS in Utah and I remember quite well what was taught in LDS churches and what the common thinking was on the topic.

"Those blacks must have really done something wrong in the pre-existence to be treated the way they are, and to not get the Priesthood".

At some point you'd think LDS are capable of accepting some responsibility for these views, but it appears that may be too much to ask. By this point, and considering the defiant attitude you've so impressively displayed, I don't think any expression of regret would be genuine, and if the context of discussions leading up to that sort of sentiment were anything like what I've seen on this board, I don't think the apology would be widely accepted.

You have your own history, and we have ours.

Share this post


Link to post
However, your apparent willingness to excuse the past on a wholesale basis is not universally accepted, believe it or not. 

Or those whiney Hawaiians, who are still upset about the US government illegally overthrowing the Queen of Hawai'i in 1893.

I missed the part where I ever "excused" anything. I am not the one withholding information. http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20116.html

I will give you every hairy quote, every appalling statement made. It is not that hard...there are really not that many in comparison to what others have to deal with.

Or the jews of the Holocaust.

Share this post


Link to post

Mckay-"There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse"

Brigham Young-"Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.""

Now, I know you're a bright girl, so I'm sure that you can see the contradiction here.

And you are a bright boy and I am sure that you know that every random comment you can pillage from a century and a half ago does not mean much unless the current prophet espouses it. You make fun of us a lot for that "changing our mind" stuff... 'member?

And you have yet to face the McConkie admission of error and now the McKay quote....not to mention confirming BY as a prophet in the part you conveniently left out of your quote:

When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

Pretty? Hardly...makes me wanna cringe. But your problem is...even the abolitionists were "racist" under your definition and the debate of the day was whether blacks were part of the human race. And here was 'ol racist BY declaring that they would eventually be equal to everyone else..."in like proportion". Pretty radical stuff for the day, actually. But don't let that deter your agenda.

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you enummaelish,

I appreciate your response and in the way you presented it. Concerning Lam 4:8: http://www.studylight.org/com/tsk/view.cgi...4&verse=8#La4_8

In fact, I believe both are clearly talking about the appearance done to these people due to the physical challenges they were facing ie. famine and heat. I don't see anything due to God cursing someone with a dark skin to make them less attractive. Thank you

Sincerely

Jon

P.S. I am sorry but I still have a very hectic schedule so I wish you all the best. If there is a better example a dark skin being a sign of judgment from God somewhere else in the Bible, I am sorry I did not get a chance to look at it. I will continue to try to check in again.

Share this post


Link to post

Juliann,

I think I'm beginning to understand one of our points of disagreement. I read both of the links you provided and have a few thoughts.

I missed the part where I ever "excused" anything. I am not the one withholding information.

I'm not sure where "withholding information" became excusing, or where anyone is withholding information - besides the focus on the historical views.

Let's see if I can bridge the gap here.

It seems that your reference to the statements of McConkie, Hinckley, the First Presidency and others essentially is saying "forget what you've heard, read or understood in the past - based on this new & exciting information we now believe X, Y & Z!".

Don't get me wrong - the new belief in X, Y & Z (the new doctrine) is a good thing, and very welcome. But it doesn't mean the past wasn't painful, and it is that pain, sizable amounts of distrust and other facets that still exist and have a need to be reconciled.

I've found there are generally 2 different reactions to black people about the LDS church. Among young LDS blacks, some of whom are not from the US and are not familiar with the history of race relations in America, the reaction is sort of like "well, I really don't have an opinion of the past, since it was before my time, and this church works for me now, so I really don't care what was believed & who might have said what".

Fair enough, especially for people who have no interest in examining history from a critical perspective.

Among US blacks, especially those who are old enough to have lived through the Civil Rights era and remember the LDS doctrine, the (more charitable) reaction is along the lines of "well, it is certainly a good thing the LDS folks have changed their beliefs in these matters, but how in the WORLD would an institution run by God have that old ideology in the first place? We best keep an eye on these Mormons and hope they continue to have good intentions." (I won't describe some of the more toxic reactions blacks have about the LDS church, as it is not really productive, but suffice it to say there are still some raw feelings.)

Does any of this make sense?

With all due respect, the allegation of "race-baiting" is an incendiary accusation that I hope you would refrain from. Examining historic beliefs to make points about historic & current ideology do not amount to race-baiting, IMO, especially if there is a (fairly recent) history of discrminatory practices & thoughts to draw from. This isn't a rejection of the new ideology - just a candid analysis of the historic.

About your second link:

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.

×