137 replies to this topic

[Jon Haugo]

Just a collection from the BOM:

I Nephi 11:13 (Mary) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦she was exceedingly fair and white.�?¢â?¬�?
I Nephi 12:23 (Prophecy of the Lamanites [Native Americans] after Christ) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.�?¢â?¬�?
I Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.�?¢â?¬�?
II Nephi 5:21 �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦a sore cursing�?¢â?¬�?¦as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.�?¢â?¬�?
II Nephi 30:6 (Prophecy to Lamanites) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦scales of darkness shall begin to fall�?¢â?¬�?¦they shall be a white delightsome people.�?¢â?¬�? (Changed to pure and delightsome in 1981)
Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which had come upon their skins�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?
Alma 3:6 �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?
Alma 3:8 (Cursed) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren�?¢â?¬�?¦that they might not mix�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?
Alma 3:9 �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.�?¢â?¬�?
Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?
Alma 3:19 (Amlicites cursed) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦brought upon themselves the curse�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?
Alma 23:18 �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.�?¢â?¬�?
III Nephi 2:14-16 �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites�?¢â?¬�?¦became exceedingly fair�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?
III Nephi 19:25,30 (Disciples) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness�?¢â?¬�?¦nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof�?¢â?¬�?¦they were white, even as Jesus.�?¢â?¬�?
Mormon 5:15 (Prophecy about Lamanites) �?¢â?¬�??�?¢â?¬�?¦shall become a dark, a filthy, and loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?
Mormon 5:17 �?¢â?¬�??They were once a delightsome people�?¢â?¬�?¦�?¢â?¬�?

[Joe Schmoe]

tubaloth wrote:

Quote

Nope! Because if we truly understand all things (including pre-mortal) (which I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t) we would realize there is nothing wrong (or embarrassing) about it.

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.

Joe

[truth dancer]

Centenarian
Hi T...

Quote

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t know where the problem comes from? What statement is �?¢â?¬�??embarrassing�?¢â?¬�??

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with many statements regarding race by church leaders?

Quote

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think there is anything wrong with this statement is there? When people follow the Lord the are blessed, if they don�?¢â?¬â?¢t follow the Lord they suffer. Isn�?¢â?¬â?¢t this what we learn in all the scriptures?

So, ummm... all the slaves from Africa suffered because they didn't follow the Lord?  It didn't have to do with the cruel, wickedness of the white slave owners?  Really?

Quote

We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.)

Is this official doctrine?  I don't think so....

As has been noted, ALL of the human race originated from Blacks in Africa...

Quote

I can see where people might not like this statement. But Elder McConkie backs it up with scriptures. Should are problem then be with Elder McConkie or with the scriptures he sited? Which is still being published?

I think most would say BRM was flat out wrong!  Just his opinion!!

Quote

The Book of Mormon explains why the Laminates received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.)

We had a thread on this not too long ago... seems to me that defenders here were stating that there is NOTHING about black skin in the BoM...the mark is something entirely different... it was all a mistake to connect black skin with the mark.

Quote

Again is the problem with the scriptures, or the interpretation of them?

Both IMO.

Quote

If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics.

I'm not sure what you mean here... could you clarify a bit?  Are you talking about physical characteristics?  I think we already have a pretty good understanding of this.

Quote

In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)"

Good quote.  This demonstrates the racist problem IMO.    

Our common parents were Black and from Africa...  

Quote

If you read what Elder McConkie sites here from Doctrines of Salvation, it isn�?¢â?¬â?¢t talking at all (from what I saw) about Blacks. He is talking about how each nation that looses the spirit ends up hurting its progress more then helping it. They loose the light of the gospel so they are left to wonder. The statement has nothing to do specifically with Blacks or any one nation. It has to do with any people that follow God. Again is this the part of the statement that is off?

Yes.. the idea that white people are more righteous is pretty demeaning and sick, not to mention unholy.... IMO.




~dancer~

[StBalthasar]

Quote

Most members seem to still believe the ban was of God and BRM's teachings as well as teachings of other leaders over the years (MEP for example) were/are valid and accurate.

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).

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.

[Corky Wallace]

Isn't there an explanation regarding the BOM statements on skin color, something about skin doesn't really mean skin in this case, but it means "light from within", or something like that?

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.

[Jon Haugo]

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

Edited by Jon Haugo, 27 February 2005 - 10:53 AM.

[maxrep12]

StBalthasar, on Feb 27 2005, 10:34 AM, said:

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.

[juliann]

Mighty Curelom, on Feb 27 2005, 07:57 AM, said:

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.

Quote

It's one thing when an institution endorses racist beliefs. It's quite another when that institution pretends to speak for God.�??�?  The reason why church endorsed racism is so offensive is because it suggests a racist God, which most people find abhorrent.�??�?  And yes, the church DID�??�?  endorse racism through it's doctrine--

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?

Quote

You can argue that these beliefs are not doctrine right now, and you might have a valid point, even though I'd be willing to bet that your rank and file LDS still considers them doctrine.�??�?  Whether or not it is currently doctrine doesn't negate the fact that it WAS doctrine at some point in time.�??�?   And to prove that, here's a dictionary definition of "doctrine"-

Oh, yawn.  Back to your fundamentalism?  You are the one who cannot deal with change.   No one is denying that Mormons had some of the same beliefs as everyone else.   We have no need to.   We aren't fundamentalists and do not demand that we be a century ahead of the rest of the world because of your self-serving demand that God remove anyone who claims to follow him from the world they live in.  

Quote

You cannot deny that racism was taught in the Mormon church, which makes it at the very least a former doctrine of the church.

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.   Yes, the Mormon church was part of the universe.   Oh, wait...we aren't allowed to be.  Same 'ol racebaiting....building up to hysteria....

Quote

This is brilliant.�??�?  If you believe that man was create in God's image, and you also accept modern anthropological knowledge on human origins, you have to concede that God is a black man.�??�?  I love it.

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

[juliann]

Corky Wallace, on Feb 27 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

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....

[juliann]

Jon Haugo, on Feb 27 2005, 10:52 AM, said:

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!

[juliann]

Joe Schmoe, on Feb 27 2005, 10:16 AM, said:

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.

[juliann]

maxrep12, on Feb 27 2005, 10:55 AM, said:

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?

[juliann]

Corky Wallace, on Feb 27 2005, 09:03 AM, said:

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.  

Quote

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.

[maxrep12]

juliann, on Feb 27 2005, 11:05 AM, said:

maxrep12, on Feb 27 2005, 10:55 AM, said:

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.

[Jon Haugo]

Quote

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

[Mighty Curelom]

Julia said-

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

[Mighty Curelom]

Joe said

Quote

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.

Edited by Mighty Curelom, 27 February 2005 - 12:10 PM.

[StBalthasar]

maxrep12, on Feb 27 2005, 10:55 AM, said:

StBalthasar, on Feb 27 2005, 10:34 AM, said:

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?

Edited by StBalthasar, 27 February 2005 - 12:34 PM.

[Tchild2]

Quote

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.

Edited by Tchild2, 27 February 2005 - 01:16 PM.

[juliann]

maxrep12, on Feb 27 2005, 11:23 AM, said:

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.